tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN February 25, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PST
is. but that would be high up on my list of questions for michael cohen, who's executive one, who's executive two? the family's got some cause for concern here. >> i wonder with democrats in charge, do you think it's going to be different than when cohen testified in 2017? phil. >> i think it will be. i think it will be more aggressive, it will be longer. if i were democrats i'd be a bit cautious because cohen's already obviously got an issue related to credibility. if you start hammering him during the couple of days, i don't think he's going to be a terrific witness. i do think he's going to be fascinating. but if democrats go too hard after him i'm going to look at this as a former fbi guy and say be careful about undercutting him further. for everybody who says he's not reliable, if he says something different during these days than what he told federal prosecutors under mueller, they're going to come after him. he has a great incentive to speak the truth during these days. >> do you think that credibility and him pleading guilty to
certain things, do you think that's going to matter on wednesday? >> he's got credibility problems, there's no question. and i agree with phil. from the republicans, you're going to see a standard sort of defense lawyer cross-examine. you've been convicted of crimes, you've lied, why should anyone trust you now? standard fare. and it can be effective. if i was advising democrats i would say you do not need to embrace this guy. he's no saint. just stick with what can be proven. stick with what's in the tapes. stick with what's in the documents. it doesn't matter if people like this guy. you don't need to like him. it's just, can he be believed? >> but he previously postponed his testimony by what he thought were perceived threats by the president and by the president's attorney rudy giuliani. do you think that's going to affect his testimony? >> i don't know. you can't send him out there if you're his lawyer unless he's really ready to go. they made some threats that i think were over the line against his family, his father-in-law. but if i'm his lawyer i don't let him step out in front of the world with all those cameras unless he's really ready to go. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thanks, don. >> by the way, i couldn't remember. secretary of energy. see?
thank you, guys. have a good night. good to see you. will the american people see the long-awaited mueller report? rod rosenstein may have given us a clue today. that's next. i can't believe it. that we just hit the motherlode of soft-serve ice cream? i got cones, anybody wants one! oh, yeah! get ya some! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds
of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ed! ed! we struck sprinkles! [cheers] believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. geico could save you fifteen percent (indistthat was awful.tering) why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade.
so, democrats are pushing back against comments by deputy a.g. rod rosenstein that seemed to hint at whether the mueller report will be made public. let's discuss now with two former federal prosecutors, kim whaley and john sail. good evening. good to see you both. thank you for coming on. john, i'm going to start with you. this is what rosenstein said today. listen to this. >> it was a knee-jerk reaction to suggest that we should be transparent about what we do in government, but there are a lot of reasons not to be transparent about what we do in government. my view is the department of justice is best served when people are confident we're going to operate when we're investigating american citizens
in particular. we're going to do it with appropriate sensitivity to the rights of uncharged people. if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond reasonable doubt in court then we have no business making allegations against american citizens. >> so, john, we're expecting the mueller report to be delivered soon. do you get an indication from that he's speaking about the president? is he speaking in generalities? is he sending us a signal? >> with all due respect to mr. rosenstein, he's on his way out and there is a new sheriff in town and i think we have to look at what is attorney general barr going to do? i watched his confirmation hearings with great interest and he won me over. i think that he is going to do just what he said. he's going to be, in terms of the summary he sends to the congress, he's going to be as transparent as possible. but subject to the rules and the law. if he didn't do that he'd be putting himself above the law. so i think he's got some tough decisions to make. but the most interesting thing i thought mr. barr said in his confirmation hearings was he would not be bullied. and i thought when i heard it that was the message to the
president, that he's not going to cover it up, but by the same token it's a message to congressmen like adam schiff that he's not afraid of being subpoenaed. i think he's going to do what he thinks is right and he's going to have allegiance to the rule of law and the constitution. >> point taken about barr on the way in, rosenstein on the way out. but kim, let's talk about rosenstein. i want to do that because you've worked with him. what do you think he's doing here? >> it's hard to say out of context. i would guess that that is not a statement about the mueller report or whether the mueller report, if there is one that could be made public because there are questions regarding the regulations if that were to be made public. i think what he's saying actually is consistent with the view that no one is above the law and that is that the justice department is not a political entity, that they don't call balls and strikes based on whether someone is popular or not with a person in power. and when he talks about regular citizens, my guess is he's saying, listen, typically in the
justice department if they make a decision not to prosecute, that is not made public and that is the guideline that governs this particular document. the distinction is, however, that typically a regular person could be indicted if there's a crime. under doj policy, that is not the case for the president of the united states. and knowing rod rosenstein, i would be surprised if he would be comfortable with the idea that, hey, you can't indict a sitting president but you also cannot share information relating to possible impeachment with congress. that would be a checkmate, no way to hold a president accountable. and i would think in the circumstance involving the president, if he cannot be indicted, there has to be another way that the constitutional structure could hold him accountable for potential wrongdoing. and i think rod rosenstein would agree with that principle. >> okay. so, john, you mentioned adam schiff in your previous comments, he's chair of the house intelligence committee.
he's calling it a double standard. the vice chair of the senate intel committee, senator mark warner, says mueller's records about the president's conduct must be made available. are democrats getting ready for a battle over this report, do you think? >> well, if there is a battle and if they do issue a subpoena how do they fight such a battle? they go to court. and that would not be a bad thing because there are so many competing interests. but if the attorney general decides there's no precedent, it's not like a court case, he may or may not follow what's been done in other instances. he's got to strike that balance. and i'm repeating, but i feel this strongly. i think this man is going to do what he thinks is right. he has nowhere to go. he has no political aspirations. he's taken a job at this point in his life where i don't think he wants to be part of a cover-up. >> let me ask you about barr, kim, because at his confirmation hearing attorney general barr talked about withholding information on uncharged individuals. right? we know that. rosenstein is saying something
that is similar. you said context is everything here. you didn't think he was talking directly about the president. is it really possible that we could go through the last two years, all of the questions, all of the charges and not get any real answers or a real answer as to what robert mueller found? >> i think that is conceivable in reading the actual regulation. so the regulations are different from what governed under whitewater, which was an actual statute. that statute is now gone. regulations were created. and frankly i think maybe they weren't crafted in a way that had this particular situation in mind. because what people want to know is if there is information related to wrongdoing on the part of the president of the united states. with respect to other players, if they're not indicted, other people that are not sitting presidents, that are not arguably protected by article 2, i think rod rosenstein and mr. barr would agree, that is kept private.
the question -- or kept confidential. the question is, what about the information relating to the president of the united states? and under the regulations there's no clear mechanism for turning that over to the public. so mr. barr does have a tremendous amount of power in this moment to determine whether the separation of powers under the constitution is actually going to function. and if it goes to the court, to the federal courts, there would be a battle and i believe ultimately there would have to be some lever whereby someone has access to information. it doesn't just go in a black hole for no light to shine on because every exit is closed. that can't be right under the constitution. >> so, john, the president's son, don junior, weighed in on the mueller investigation this morning. watch this. >> they put incredible pressure on regular guys that couldn't afford a million dollars in legal fees and got them to slip up and say something incorrectly. you know, they pretended they were their friends. and that's all that happened. there are no actual crimes.
there's only things that people did in past lives, you know, in 2006, before we even thought we'd ever get into this crazy world. you know, and that's what it is. >> so -- where do i begin? we're talking about 37 people and entities who are charged, that are charged. seven people pleading guilty. michael flynn, roger stone, george papadopoulos, michael cohen charged with or pleaded guilty to lying to congress or the fbi about the russia-related matters. those aren't actual crimes? >> oh, sure they're crimes. by calling them process crimes is inappropriate. they go to the very heart of the criminal justice system. but, you know, representative joe kennedy of massachusetts who's a critic of the president, he said if the mueller investigation shows no collusion with russians he would be happy. a special counsel, i was part of the watergate prosecution, if they do a thorough investigation and it determines the president was not involved, they have not failed. on the other hand, if the president was involved, certainly as a citizen i would want to know it.
it's just a balancing act. and just to come back to mr. barr, he has great discretion. >> john, kim, thank you. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. univision anchor jorge ramos and his crew were detained tonight while interviewing venezuelan president nicolas maduro. they've since been released and i'm going to speak to the former u.s. ambassador who helped get them out of custody.
isn't what goes into your soup... just as important as what you get out of it? our broccoli cheddar is made with aged melted cheddar, simmered broccoli, and no artificial flavors. enjoy 100% clean soup today. panera. food as it should be. i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable. ♪ with venus, you're in charge of how your skin feels. so, when the world expects you to follow the rules, write your own.
here's our breaking news tonight. univision anchor jorge ramos and his news crew have been released after being detained while conducting an interview with venezuelan president nicolas maduro. my next guest was instrumental in ramos' release. joining me now, the former united states ambassador to panama, john feeley. also a consultant to univision. thank you so much for joining us, sir. i appreciate that. as i said, you played a role in coordinating the release of jorge ramos and his news crew. what can you tell us about that? >> i sure can.
and it's a pleasure, don. i played a very big role. the people who played the real role were the people of the department of state. here's what happened. i got a call at about 7:00 tonight from my colleagues at univision. they informed me that jorge ramos and a group of five technicians supporting him had been granted authorization to have an interview with nicolas maduro. during the interview jorge ramos asked him some very hard questions and characterized him as a murderer and as a dictator. maduro didn't like that. he immediately ended the interview and jorge ramos and his team were manhandled by the praetorian guard that he has there in miraflores. their equipment was confiscated. all their telephones were taken away. and they were held against their will for over two hours and 50 minutes inside miraflores palace. i got the call this had happened. what i did was basically what i used to do when i was a department officer.
i called the state department operations center which immediately put me in touch with our embassy in caracas and with the assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs, kim breyer, apprised them of that, suggested to him that she put out a tweet so maduro knew the eyes of the world were watching. that's about the sum total of my engagement, but it was really -- i think that tweet and others who put out their own communication that we watch and we know when they're messing with americans. >> and now they're safe, which is good. i'm wondering, are you concerned about the tensions between the united states and venezuela escalating? >> i'm enormously concerned. everybody should be concerned. what we have in venezuela is not a socialist, is not a communist. we have a good, old-fashioned mafioso thug who has systematically abused his people for the last five, six years, who has taken the richest country according to resources, right? the world's largest proven oil reserves. and turned it into the poorest.
9 out of 10 venezuelans live in poverty. so yes, i am concerned, but i am also heartened, don. i'm heartened by the fact the trump administration is working multilaterally. what vice president pence did today in bogota with the lima group was stand with all of these democracies in insisting that the humanitarian aid enter and in committing to the legitimate president, juan guaido, that the international community, the united states, we're not about to leave the venezuelans behind. >> let's talk about the southern border and this national emergency. you joined dozens of other senior-level national security experts to publicly take on the president over this emergency declaration to get his border wall. and here's part of the statement that you signed on to. it says, "we are aware of no emergency that remotely justifies such a step. the president's actions are at odds with the overwhelming evidence in the public record including the administration's own data and estimates." so why did you feel compelled to confront him with this letter? >> i'm a private citizen now, don. i felt compelled to do this because i, studying the facts, and i know that there are
alternate facts in this world, but the facts along the southern border, a part of our nation and mexico that i know well from my diplomatic experience, is not experiencing a humanitarian or -- i'm sorry, is not experiencing a national security crisis. it is experiencing a humanitarian crisis, and that is the product of this administration's policies. zero tolerance. metering people in to have asylum claims heard, et cetera. so i felt it was my obligation as a private citizen to lend my voice to what i think is a very powerful statement. >> so, let me ask you about this. i just want to put this up because these numbers show the overall trend for people coming over. that overall trend is down. so tomorrow the democratic-controlled house is expected to overwhelmingly pass a bill that would block the president's wall. after that, it will head to the republican-controlled senate. this is what the president tweeted about it. he said, "i hope our great republican senators don't get
led down the path of weak and ineffective border security." are you hoping your letter might influence enough republican senators to send that bill to the president's desk? >> that is certainly the hope. i have to say, as my dad used to say, how big is that hope? well, slim to none and slim just left town. i don't think it's going to have that much of an effect there. but i do think this joint declaration of facts on the ground will have an effect in a number of the court cases, there are currently five i believe that have been started, and quite possibly it may convince some very good, thoughtful republicans to take a look at the facts as reported by the administration's own department of homeland security. and recognize that there is no national existential security crisis at the southern border. what there is, is a bad policy. >> ambassador feeley, thank you for your time. >> it's always a pleasure, don.
>> we'll be right back. this is dell cinema technology enhanced with cinemastream for less buffering and smoother streaming. cinemasound for audio up to 60% louder with 260% more perceived bass. and cinemacolor with dolby vision to bring your entertainment to life with ultra vivid colors and stunning contrast. experience the incredible color, sound and streaming of dell cinema. get $200 off select xps13 laptops at dell.com. ♪
can you talk about it? what is that? >> well, i can't really go into specifics because we're past the bond proffer, but i can just tell you this. normally when we do things of this nature, all the evidence isn't provided up front. so there are some other things that just don't support the original version of the story that we got. >> okay. so let's talk about some of those things. you said there's additional evidence, but you can't talk about it. what about this whole thing about the check? you know, he's saying he wrote on the line that it was for training and whatever, and it wasn't to stage an attack. what do you say to that? >> well, you know what? like i said, don, a lot of these things will come out in court if it gets that far. but let's face it. if you were going to, let's say, buy a stolen car, you wouldn't put in the memo line "buying stolen car." that's what i'll say to that. >> did the brothers testify or tell police that the check was for the attack, or was it for training? >> well, when you look at -- if you read the bond proffer, what they said the check was for is in that bond proffer, and it was for the attack. >> okay. >> the staged attack. >> so let's talk about this letter.
what about the letter, because that was one of the first things you said during the initial press conference, that you believe that he -- this is the one that came about a week before to the set of "empire." the fbi says that is not confirmed. >> well, yeah. the fbi has not confirmed that, you know, that's their individual investigation. so any comments that we've made about it is from evidence that we've gathered independent of the fbi. >> so this is from your own -- >> so they may in fact come up with -- they may in fact come up with something different. >> but this is from -- you're talking about chicago pd's evidence has nothing to do with what the fbi has collected. it's two separate investigations. is that what you're saying? >> that's correct. that's correct. >> okay. can we also talk about the cook county state's attorney kim foxx recusing herself. why was that? was there some sort of conflicts of interest? >> well, you know, really, she's the person that has to answer that.
but i have a very good working relationship with state's attorney foxx. i would just say this, that i'm sure she had good reason for recusing herself from the case. >> so, here's the thing. i mean, besides the question about why would jussie smollett do this, you laid that out in the proffer. and from what, you know, you said at the press conference. but what reason, superintendent, would the brothers have to attack jussie smollett on their own if -- because if he's saying he didn't do it, that must mean the brothers did it on their own? >> well, that's the only thing you could surmise from that. and, you know, we have to face the fact that he still has the presumption of innocence at this time, and he'll get his chance to explain his side of the story. but, like you just said, you know, you wonder why would they do that on their own? they didn't appear to have any conflict with each other. i think all those details will come out when he gets his day in court. >> i'm sure you've heard about this. people were surprised. you know, i'm not saying in a bad or a good way, but in the press conference that you were so passionate, so clearly upset.
this was personal for you. why is that? >> you know what, don? i've lived in chicago my entire life, and i don't know if you know this, but i grew up -- part of my childhood was in cabrini-green, which could be characterized as the most notorious housing project back in the '60s and '70s. when i took this job as superintendent in 2016, the mayor and i made a pact that we would do everything we could to make chicago safer, and we've made a lot of progress in these three years. crime is down. we have built up and repaired relationships in the black communities, the black and brown communities. so we don't want to lose that momentum, and we certainly don't need manufactured things to, you know, stunt that growth. now, are we where we want to be? of course we're not. but we've made a lot of progress. you know, we're 40% down this year, year-to-date, compared to last year in terms of murders. 22% down in shootings. and those are important figures. so i don't want anything to
disrupt that unless it is something that is -- something that's earned, and it just -- i just don't understand the nature of something like this because it could really cause an issue in this city. you know, we've had issues before, but we've made a lot of progress also. >> and the numbers are going the right way -- the right direction. that's a good thing. as far as jussie smollett, he continues to stand by his story that he didn't stage this attack, superintendent. his attorneys released a statement saying, smollett feels betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing. how do you respond to that? >> so, what i'll say to you, don, is this. our job as police officers, not just in chicago but across this country -- our job is to let the facts guide us to where we go. when we started this investigation, he told us that, you know, he could see through the mask that these were white-skinned people. that's who we were looking for. but the facts guided us in a different direction.
and i would tell you this also. we classified him as a victim. we gave him the benefit of the doubt all the way up until the 47th hour of the 48th hour that we could legally hold those two brothers in custody. it turned at that 47th hour, and that's when he became a suspect in this, you know. our job is to gather the facts and evidence, present them to the state's attorney, who then decides if the evidence is sufficient for charging. they decided it was. now, the next step is to go through the judicial process and either a judge or jury will decide who's telling the truth. so, we just let the judicial process play out. >> he did say it was white -- he saw white skin. he said that to you, to police? >> yes. if you read the bond proffer -- >> i did. >> you'll see that in there. >> i have you here. i just want to make sure. again, you stand by the evidence you have, and you said you have more evidence than what you presented at the press conference and in the proffer that leads you to believe that this was something that he cooked up himself?
>> i absolutely stand by the investigation. the detectives did a heck of a job, and i want to commend them on their thoroughness in that investigation. so i have no reason to believe right now that it's anything different than what we've stated it is. now, when he gets his day in court and he's able to say his part of the incident, then we'll see what happens. but right now, tonight, the evidence suggests otherwise. it doesn't suggest that the incident occurred the way that he stated it did. >> you guys are very busy in chicago. i want to ask you about r. kelly now. he left the cook county jail this afternoon after posting bail. he was indicted on ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of four victims. these stories of r. kelly with underage girls have been around for decades. superintendent, why is it taking so long to charge him? >> well, i think a lot of the problem is, don, you know, even like for us, when we are investigating murders and shootings and things of that nature, you know, oftentimes
we'll identify people of interest. but it ultimately comes down to whether witnesses or victims are willing to cooperate. you can have all the evidence in the world, but if victims and witnesses don't want to cooperate, then you kind of reach a point that you can't take it any further. so i think right now what you have with that particular case is people that feel like they were taken advantage of are willing to actually say something right now. >> superintendent, i thank you for your time. you mentioned at the press conference about the people who were victims of gun violence in chicago needing to get attention, and we would love to have you back to discuss that as well. so, will you please come back anytime and discuss those issues? >> i'd be glad to, don. thanks for having me. >> thank you, superintendent johnson. appreciate your time. >> okay. >> we'll be right back. of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar
and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin
may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast...
guys do whatever it takes to deal with shave irritation. so, we re-imagined the razor with the new gillette skinguard. it has a unique guard between the blades. that's designed to reduce irritation during the shave. because we believe all men deserve a razor just for them. the best a man can get. gillette. uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan.
td ameritrade. ♪ so president trump lashed out at director spike lee on twitter, seemingly reacting to lee's acceptance speech for the oscar for best adapted screenplay. here's what he said. he said, "be nice if spike lee could read his notes or better yet not have to use notes at all when doing his racist hit on your president, who has done more for african-americans, criminal justice reform, lowest unemployment numbers in history, tax cuts, et cetera, than almost any other prez." except spike lee didn't say anything racist. he said this. >> the 2020 presidential election is around the corner. let's all mobilize. let's all be on the right side of history. make the moral choice between love versus hate. let's do the right thing! you know i had to get that in there.
>> that's not a racist attack on the president. all spike said was that there is a choice in the 2020 election and that choice is between love and hate. if the president sees that as racist, as a racist hit despite it not being one, what does that say about him? after all, president trump is the one who said this about nazis marching in charlottesville. >> you also had people that were very fine people. on both sides. you had people in that group -- excuse me. excuse me. i saw the same pictures as you did. >> and he said this about peaceful protests by black nfl players. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners when somebody disrespects our flag to say get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's fired. he's fired! >> are you feeling the love? and we have talked many times on this show about the president's notion that he's done more for african-americans than any other
president. a good economy or new prison and sentencing reform laws will not solve all of the problems that people of color face across our country today. those aren't fixes to the systematic racism that has embedded itself in generations of american life. maybe if president trump watched spike lee's movie "blackkklansman" he'd get a glimpse of what has happened in this country. the movie tells the true story of ron stallworth, the first african-american detective in the colorado springs police force in the 1970s. it chronicles how stallworth managed to infiltrate the ku klux klan and it ends with images of nazis marching in charlottesville in 2017 and trump's statement about how there were very fine people on both sides. the now oscar-winning movie ends with a reminder that racism in our country is still real and that the kkk and that hate comes
with it has festered for way too long. the movie could actually be a reminder to this president, a reminder that hate exists. remember, on the campaign trail in 2016 trump was asked if he condemned the former kkk grand wizard david duke and other white supremacists. this is what he said. >> well, just so you understand, i don't know anything about david duke. okay? i don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. so, i don't know. i don't know. did he endorse me, or what's going on. because, you know, i know nothing about david duke. i know nothing about white supremacists. so you're asking me a question that i'm supposed to be talking about people that i know nothing about. >> i wonder what he has learned since then. let's discuss now. kareem abdul-jabbar is here. so glad to have him. and karina mayo as well. thank you for joining us. this is an important topic to discuss. lots i want to talk to you about, kareem. let's start with this.
the president thinks that spike lee's call for love over hate was a racist attack on him. what would make him think that? >> i think he sees enemies everywhere he looks. so he probably is trying to make a case for that being an attack on him. i think spike is trying to get people out to vote and to express whatever it is that they feel is their political statement. >> karen, spike was pretty reserved for what he said. coming from spike lee, he could have gone much harder. that was reserved. >> that was my first thought. i was like, wow, spike's tucking it in. you're used to spike coming at you a little more clearly than that, even. this is a president who knows he's on the wrong side of history. so you've hit the dog. in other words, he's barking because he knows he exemplifies all that spike and his courageous film are really standing against. david duke actually makes a
cameo in spike's film if the president needs to make himself familiar with who david duke is. >> but david duke also, there is also him talking about david duke in an interview way prior. >> of course. i'm being facetious. he absolutely knows who david duke is. he did before that moment. >> during the campaign, kareem, trump used to ask black voters, remember, what do you have to lose? does he understand that his policies and the economy hasn't solved racism? >> well, i think he -- i think what he's reacting to is the fact that his own history with regard to rental units in queens where they refused to rent to black applicants, i think that's something that he knows is a shadow on anything that he has to say. and he and his dad paid fines without admitting any guilt, they paid fines and were told to
rectify the situation. it's things like that that really give the lie to so many of the things that he has to say. >> yeah. do you think he believes that? do you think he believes he's somehow solved racism and this is the best time ever for african-americans and he doesn't see how -- >> i do. >> -- how the economy has only improved about -- >> i don't think he really -- this may be out there. but i don't think the president sees black people as fully human. i don't think he sees us as having agency, intelligence, as noted by his comment about spike. he wishes he could read. there's always some subtle suggestion that black people need to catch up, keep up, and if it were not for his graciousness, if it were not for his attentiveness, his lovingkindness, we would be in a hell of a place. but you know, clearly most
african-americans i think are offended by most of the president's language, by most of his conversation, and certainly by the -- every night, every clip just leaves most african-americans feeling this is a person who actively hates me. this is a person who hates people who look like me. and despite these individual one-off wins i think we're clear that the legacy of donald trump and the future of donald trump is one and the same. he is racist. >> i want to ask you, kareem, because people look to you for this as a figure of authority and power in this country, someone who knows the history of this country. this is a big ask. if you could offer this president some advice, what would you say to him, especially in regards to all he has said? what he believes about this. and spike lee. >> i don't think it's appropriate to ask the president for anything because he has his mind set on what he wants to do and that seems to be what we're
going to get from him. his agenda. and if we're not with that, i think we'll be ignored. that seems to be the process so far. i don't think that's going to change. >> yeah. listen, i want to talk to you about an op-ed you that wrote and other things. so, stick with me, both of you. we've got to talk about "green book's" controversial win at the oscars and why people are divided over whether it was real enough. kareem abdul-jabbar's written a great piece on that, and we're going to talk about that next. when did soup become this? at panera, we treat soup differently. with vine ripened tomatoes, signature cheddar, simmered to perfection. with big flavors, not artificial ones. enjoy 100% clean soup today. panera. food as it should be.
enjoy 100% clean soup today. so, you're open all day, that's what 24/7 means, sugar. kind of like how you get 24/7 access to licensed agents with geico. hmm? yeah, you just go online, or give them a call anytime. you don't say. yep. now what will it take to get 24/7 access to that lemon meringue pie? pie! pie's coming! that's what it takes, baby. geico®. great service from licensed agents, 24/7.
so the backlash continues over oscar's best picture winner, green book. it's the story of an italian-american driver as they travel through the deep south in the 1960s. many critics slammed the film for a dated portrayal for rags relations for advancing the so-called white savior. so this is an interesting topic. let's talk about this because, karim, a lot of people have criticized this movie and its message on race. and you have a piece out why the green book controversies don't matter. explain the controversies and why you think it's overblown. >> because the movie is supposed to be entertainment, and it's not a documentary. it's not supposed to be so factually accurate, you know, and that being the standard for what they were doing. i think it really conveys the heart of this, and gives us an
opportunity to talk about something we really need to talk about right now. so i'm glad it's out there and i'm glad it got the attention that it did. it's no different from the stories that they did about how the klan was infiltrated and exposed by fbi agents all of those movies, they weren't 100% factually accurate, but they conveyed what did happen and it showed the bravery of the fbi and how black americans also were involved so intimately in winning the civil rights movement. >> what do you say? >> well, it's an honor to be sharing a space with you gentlemen. >> but you don't necessarily agree. >> but i do not necessarily agree. there's something he wrote that i have to quote here. the film is more effective from
tony's point of view because the audience that might be most changed from watching it is the white watchers. i think that's idea i'm taking issue with, this idea we are once again centering the white audience. somehow we can't have any kind of progressive discussion without defying to the white lens, so that this heroism that happens with this character lit only happens in the imagination of the white male creator. so it's not so much a question of historical accuracy. i think even spike's film takes liberties in terms of what it happened in the past and in terms of what they were covering. but it's highly problematic i
believe for us to keep visiting these same tropes, the same idea that a black man has to somehow deliver you from racism. and it's not our job -- >> you also write about that you explain sort of what she's talking ability. you have an explanation for it. go on. what do you say? >> oh, i think that both sides -- there are two sides to that. you know, she's talking about the white person that enlightened -- but, you know, i had experiences like that that i had, let's say, with my college coach, john wooden, one of the greatest coaches that ever stepped on the court. but he didn't understand intimately what black people had
to go through on a daily basis, and so we lived together for three seasons. and it was enlightening for him. so i think that does happen, and, you know -- there's an exchange there. it's not just one-sided. and i think the movie tried in as far as i can see to convey that. >> listen, i've got to get to this for time purposes because i think it's really important. jive got one more thing i want to ask you about and it's really exciting. that you are auctioning off some of your own sports memorabilia for a really, really great cause. can you tell us about that? >> well, my foundation works with the l.a. unified school district and we send kids to camp for four nights and five days to study stem, science technology engineering and math subjects. hands on with the people provided by the l.a. unified
school district. and it really opens kids minds up to the possibilities of great jobs in the 21st century. and gives them, as i say, a shot that can't be blocked. so working with golden auctions.com, and we hope to do a great job with the auction because a good part of the proceeds are going to enable me to keep my foundation going and keep the buses running and deal with the backlog. we have about a five or six-year waiting list of schools wanting to participate. i'm very happy with the success so far, and i want to keep it going. >> and you help out a lot of people with that as we can see. and when does the auction start? >> the auction has gone on most of this month. it ends on march 2nd. gold goldenauctions.com. >> i got you. that's where i'm going to next.
to bid on special items from kareem's career and toelp a -- thanks for watching. our coverage continues. a red carpet welcome for kim jong-un. the north korean leader has arrived in vietnam for his upcoming meeting with president donald trump. plus an australia jury finds one of the top leaders of the catholic church guilty of child sexual abuse. >> why is every room packed that i go to? >> we want to get rid of trump. >> the democrats are packing campaign rallies showing how excited they are about next year's election and a chance to win back the white house. welcome to our viewers joining us from the u.s. and all around the world. i'm cyril