tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN March 6, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PST
exercise it any way you want, right? if he pressured people to give clearance to jared kushner, isn't it a legitimate question asked, why? we'll see tomorrow. and i'll see you as well. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with erin burnett, aka, the upgrade in for d. lemon, starts right now. >> oh, it is so true. sadly, he's probably not even watching. >> no. he passed out long ago. >> he's a lightweight. all right. have a good night. >> you too. and to all of you, welcome to tonight. this is "cnn tonight." i'm erin burnett in for don lemon. multiple sources telling cnn that president trump put pressure on two former top aides, chief of staff john kelly and white house counsel don mcgahn, put pressure on both of them to grant security clearance to ivanka trump. the president's daughter and senior adviser. so now it's not just jared kushner. it's also ivanka. now, kelly and mcgahn were against the move, so the
president granted the clearance on his own. by the way, keep in mind that he said he had nothing to do with it, didn't know anything about it. so that was a lie. also breaking tonight, "the washington post" reporting that michael caputo, a former trump campaign aide, will not cooperate with the expansive investigation launched by the house judiciary committee with a two-week deadline for documents. caputo is one of 81 individuals and entities to receive a letter requesting documents and testimony about the administration, the campaign, the transition, and the trump family and its business. the president's red lines. president trump himself digging in his heels today in the wake of the house judiciary action. >> the witch hunt continues. the fact is that i guess we got 81 letters. there was no collusion. that was a hoax. there was no anything. and they want to do that instead of getting legislation passed. it's a disgrace to our country. the people understand that when they look at it, they just say
presidential harassment. >> president trump long warning that investigators would be crossing red lines if they started looking into his finances and his family. well, we are over that red line. trump not only has to deal with the, you know, the very broad set of requests for information from the house judiciary committee. tonight we are learning that a new york state government agency is opening an investigation into the trump organization's insurance practices. that nine-page subpoena sent to the company's insurance broker, looking into the possibility of fraud and asset inflation. last week during his congressional testimony, trump's former lawyer and fixer michael cohen said -- he accused trump's company of doing just that. and now michael cohen is back again tomorrow. he'll be answering more questions behind closed doors before the house intelligence committee. the chairman of the committee responding tonight to the president's tweet accusing democrats of overreaching and obstructing justice. >> the president has had two years of a republican congress that did no oversight
whatsoever, so he doesn't know what oversight looks like. there are all too many serious allegations of impropriety in the administration, and they have multiplied every day. so i'm not surprised he doesn't like the idea of oversight because i think he's all too conscious of the corruption large and small in the administration. >> okay. there's so much happening and breaking late this evening. i want to turn to ellie honig, shimon prokupecz, and david cay johnst johnston. let me start with you, shimon. look, we had at a place that the president hoped we would never be. the entire trump world seems to be under investigation, right? and you have the family as part of that. the president's finances. now you've got insurance as another level of that. we understand that the house democrats could be about ready to get -- formally request those
tax returns from the treasury secretary. and now you've got this whole the president giving ivanka security clearance, overriding security concerns, jared kushner too, and he lied about it. all of his red lines seem to be obliterated now, shimon. >> yeah, absolutely. when you look at it, it's every aspect now of the president's life pretty much is under investigation in some way. a lot of it now centered in congress and obviously new york, where you now have multiple investigative bodies, for lack of a better word, that are really looking at every aspect of the president's life, his business dealings, his personal dealings, people close to him, his family. he's now opened himself up to issues within congress, with the security clearances. so certainly when you think about what the president said to "the new york times" in that interview about the red line, i mean we are far beyond that, right? we were at a point where everyone was so worried about what mueller was going to do. well, if you look at everything that we've learned really
through today in the last few days, we are so much farther ahead than we ever thought with every, every aspect of the president's life under investigation. >> ellie, it's incredible. we don't even know what mueller does or does not have, right? this is all full speed ahead. southern district of new york, we know the president is more concerned about that than anything else. when it comes to the security clearances, the new reporting tonight on ivanka trump that he overruled security concerns on that. he also did so of course for jared kushner. and today the white house counsel fighting all these documents related to that. how long can they drag this out? will they lose on the document fight. >> i think they can drag it out quite a while, and i think the white house ultimately will lose. i think we're about to see a strategic chess game. here's how it goes. it starts with a request for congress, request for documents, not a subpoena. they're holding that back strategically. today we saw the response from the white house objecting on sort of technical grounds.
it's too overbroad, that kind of thing. the next step from congress, if they want to push the issue, is now here's a subpoena. now you have to hand over the documents. it's compulsory. it's not optional. then the ball goes back to the white house and they may invoke executive privilege. >> they want to get through this term. obviously he hopes he wins a second term but they're trying to drag this at least through the first term. >> could be. ultimately when they invoke executive privilege, they could end up in the courts. this could take month. >> with the new reporting on ivanka trump specifically, i think it's worth playing again what she told abc news just last month, specifically about the issue of security clearances and whether her father, the president, had anything to do with her and her husband getting them. here she is. >> the president had no involvement pertaining to my clearance or my husband's clearance. >> okay. look, david, it's possible she didn't know what he was doing. totally possible.
it's also possible she's completely lying. will we ever know which it is? >> oh, i think so. interestingly, she didn't say, i don't know anything about that. she offered an affirmative action. the president had nothing to do with it. now, how would she know that? so i think it's more likely that she's lied about this. and of course president trump himself said he did not intervene in any way, and we have these two memos written by kelly and mcgahn that pretty clearly are designed to make sure if this all goes south, they don't end up living in leavenworth. >> right. there's a record, right, that they somehow made that record. >> right. >> it's interesting ivanka's name coming up in this because i know that the chairman of the house judiciary, you know, jerrold nadler made it very clear to me, okay, her name is probably going to be on the next list. but she wasn't on the first 81, and everyone else in the trump family was. i just want to play something rudy giuliani said about ivanka
last year because i'm wondering if this is relevant. here he is. >> if they do do ivanka, which i doubt they will, the whole country will turn on him. they're going after his daugh r daughter. jared is a fine man. you know that. but men are, you know, disposable. but a fine woman like ivanka? come on. >> david, just putting aside those many offensive things, what do you make of that? is that the way it is? >> well, i think this is strategic. one of the things that you're going to want to do here is split up the family and get them to not be with each other. and if ivanka gets in a position choosing between her husband and her father, what is she going to do? so i think this is just part of the strategy of how you approach these things, and part of that is, you know, they're not being overly tough-handed here. at the end of the day, congress can literally send the sergeant
at arms out to arrest people and bring them before congress to testify. i don't think you'll see that. >> pretty incredible if it got to that point. shimon, we talk about all these lines being crossed and now the family. you also have all of the money, right? the money that's being investigated, tax returns about to be requested, on and on. now, of course, reporting that an agency in new york writes a nine-page subpoena to the trump organization requesting information on an insurance brokerage after michael cohen, when he was asked directly by alexandria ocasio-cortez if the president had inflated the value of the trump organization, inflated the value of assets for insurance purposes. i want to be clear that would be fraud. categorically he answered yes that had happened. what else do we know? >> so this nine-page subpoena was delivered to the trump organization, to actually the insurance company for the trump organization on monday. what's interesting about this is that the subpoena goes back ten years. they're looking for information from 2009 forward.
they want to know about communications. they want documents relating to the insurance company and their business dealings with the trump organization. the one thing that is interesting about this, right, so this organization, it's the new york department of financial services. it's not well known, but certainly they oversee a lot of lenders. they oversee insurance companies. they oversee banks that deal with business in new york. and one of the things they look for is financial fraud and also obviously fair business practice. they are not a criminal body, so they can't necessarily themselves pursue criminal charges. but if they find some kind of fraud, they can refer to a state prosecutor, and that is much different obviously because a state prosecutor, there's no pardon for the president or anyone who may be involved in this. so it could present potentially different challenges. certainly these charges could be either -- if there are criminal charges, they could be referred to the attorney general in new york, which has already launched its own investigation. but then we may also have a new opening here for the new york
county d.a., the manhattan d.a.'s office, which could begin looking into something related to this. >> and of course, you know, again it would be fraud, which leads to the point if michael cohen is going to be testifying again tomorrow, it's behind closed doors. this is one thing that certainly they would want to drill down on, and i would presume he'd be cooperating with any other authorities who are asking questions. but what else do you think is going to be of utmost focus tomorrow behind closed doors? >> remember that what we saw last week in public from michael cohen was seven hours or so, and the reporting is that he spent, according to mueller and southern district, he spent ten times that amount of time with them. so i think they're going to dig deep into a lot of things we heard about in a superficial level. the hush money payments, there's so much more to that story. i think they're going to want to hear about that. i think they're going to dig deep into the trump org, into his false testimony, how did he come about this false testimony to the senate. these behind closed door sessions are much different. the questioners are not limited
to five minutes. the tv cameras are there, so i think you can get a lot deeper into the substance in these closed door sessions. >> david, you know, then we've got new reporting because elie just mentioned the hush money payments. "the new york times" says they have six more of the checks that trump or his trust wrote to michael cohen. oddly the president started doing this himself via his trust. his name on every one of these. you know, the "times" did a really good job on this because they go through each of these checks that you see on your screen, and they show the date that the check was written. and then they check against the public schedule of what the president was doing that day. so, you know, on one day he makes a condolence call to a soldier's widow, and then he writes a check on that same day. on another day, he has a meeting with netanyahu, and he meets with president abbas in bethlehem. he flies to rome. he writes another check. another day he goes to the prime minister of malaysia. he writes a check.
another day, he pardons a turkey. he cuts a check. it does, the way they do it, make the point, right? in the midst of all these other things he's doing as president of the united states, he is every single month writing a check for stormy daniels. >> there are, i'm sure -- i'm sure there's going to be more checks. but what was significant to me about the checks is the initial ones were written from his trust account, and those checks were signed by allen weisselberg and don trump jr. all of a sudden donald trump is personally signing the checks. what that suggests to me is that when allen weisselberg was approached by the fbi, he suddenly realized he could be culpable and said, i'm sorry. you're going to have to sign your own checks, donald, going forward. and i'm sure that is a question that will be pursued behind closed doors. >> yeah, and certainly you do see that shift on these checks. all right. thank you all very much. a lot more to get to this hour. a former campaign staffer for trump or adviser says he will
not cooperate with the house judiciary committee despite being on that list, the initial list as they emphasize of 81 people they want to speak to. a member of that committee, congressman david cicilline, reacts next. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs.
and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen9 to 500500 today. ♪
briz, former trump adviser michael caputo says he will not cooperate with the house judiciary committee. he was on that list of people and entities getting letters. two-week deadline for information. says no way. joining me now, democratic congressman david cicilline of rhode island, who sits on the house judiciary and foreign affairs committees. i appreciate your time, congressman. >> my pleasure. >> michael caputo says he's not going to cooperate with the request for information from your committee. what will you do? >> well, i think with respect to all of the document requests that we've made, we intend to get the materials that we need to conduct our oversight. we sent out correspondence requesting these documents, particularly documents that have already been furnished to either the special counsel or the
southern district of new york. to the extent that individuals refuse to provide those documents, we obviously have other mechanisms, including a subpoena, to force the production of the documents. but we have oversight responsibility, and that is contingent on our ability to collect information, to collect evidence, both documents and testimony. and we intend to do that. it's an important responsibility we have. we expect most of the witnesses will cooperate and produce the documents. but to the extent that we have to use court process or subpoena, we will do it. >> so caputo told the "washington post" that he's already begun coordinating with four other trump associates who received requests from the committee, and they're going to be working on some sort of a joint strategy to resist requests. they think it's a perjury trap. what do you say to that when they say, you're just trying toito impeach the president? >> look, these investigations which really center around three principal areas, corruption, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power, they involve a whole range of activities of this administration that we have
a responsibility to conduct oversight for. that's one of the duties the constitution requires us to engage in. the republicans have refused to do it for the last two years. we have a 500-page documents with all of the times we attempted to persuade them to conduct oversight. they never did it. but this is the responsibility of the judiciary committee, and we intend to do it. and witnesses if they testify truthfully and produce documents as requested, won't run into a perjury trap. just tell the truth. simply to say because the president was the subject of a special counsel investigation, that the judiciary committee is precluded from investigating anything else is an absurdity. we have a number of serious allegations that have been made, and we have a responsibility to find the truth and reveal the facts to the american people. >> there is more new reporting at this hour, congressman, and that is that president trump pressured staff to grant his daughter ivanka, not just his son-in-law, jared kushner, but his daughter ivanka a security clearance. your reaction? >> well, this is very, very
disturbing. we should remember that a security clearance is required before some of the most secret information can be shared with an individual that is essential to protecting the security of the american people and of our country. so you want to be sure that before information is shared, that that person has been vetted and that they can't be compromised, that they don't have some other reason that they might be willing to share that information with someone they shouldn't. so this is important to protecting our country. the president has a right to order someone to get a security clearance, but you have to wonder when the cia, the fbi, and the intelligence community raised objections, the president roef overruled those objections and then lied about it. that's of great concern. >> our understanding at cnn here is that the concerns about ivanka trump's security clearance were separate from those raised about her husband, which of course concerned, as we've reported, the fears of manipulation by, you know, four specific countries among other issues. do you have any sense as to why
they were worried? what was their hesitation on ivanka trump? >> i don't know that. i think one of the things we will certainly attempt to learn by both requesting documents and bringing witnesses before the judiciary committee is to find out what their concerns were because these are central to our ability to defend our country from threats and from terrorism and from all kind s of dangers s to protect the sharing of highly confidential information. >> of the initial list of 81 people and entities, ivanka trump's name wasn't on there. >> i think it's important to remember this is our first round of document requests. i expect we will have additional requests that will go out. we haven't generated those yet. we'll certainly look at the materials we get to make determinations as to other individuals that should be the subject of document requests. >> before we go, i want to ask you about your colleague, congresswoman maxine waters. she said today -- she had actually an extensive tweet
rant, one of which she said, for the faint of heart who have been waiting for every t to be crossed and every i dotted, now is the time to demonstrate your patriotism. support impeachment, exclamation point. do you support it? >> look, chairwoman waters has been very clear on her view on this for a very long time. i think it's particularly important for the members of the judiciary committee to make sure we are gathering all of the facts before we proceed with an impeachment. obviously there are a number of things which are of tremendous concern to me and the public -- >> but you are not there yet. the facts are not there yet as you see them? >> i think there is lots of evidence. we have one opportunity to proceed with an impeachment proceeding. i think it's important before we do that we have all the evidence, all the facts, and we're just at the beginning of gathering that information through the document request. the special counsel has been at work for two years. we're just starting our oversight responsibilities, but we're going to get to it as quickly as we can to get the facts so we can make
determinations to how we proceed from here. >> thanks for your time tonight. >> my pleasure. an overwhelming majority of americans say they think donald trump committed crimes before taking office. that's according to a poll out just tonight. we'll dig into the numbers and what this could mean for trump's re-election bid. so when i heard they added ultra oxi to the cleaning power of tide, it was just what we needed. dad? i didn't do it. #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide.
this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows.
click, call or visit a store today. after months of speculation, the former new york city mayor, michael bloomberg, is ruling out a run for the president. everyone else seems to be getting in. he has chosen not too. the fourth person this week to say they're sitting out. now, that does not mean the list of democratic candidates isn't getting longer and longer. ed hickenlooper got in this week and while there are some still big names we are waiting news from, i want to bring in frank bruni and ryan lizza. michael bloomberg writes this op-ed detailing the reasons and in part he wrote, quote, i am clear eyed about the difficulty of winning the democratic nomination in such a crowded field. he made it clear that he thinks, okay, i could win the general, but i cannot win the democratic primary. the field is just way too far left. is he right? >> yeah, i think he's exactly
right, and i actually think there you have a very honest assessment. i think he's being honest. i also want to tip my hat to him. a lot of politicians have trouble restraining their egos and finding any kind of limits to their egos. i think mike bloomberg did a whole bunch of research here. the people around him did a whole bunch of research. they looked hard at the fact and they said, am i really going to make a positive impact if i run for the democratic nomination? he's getting out of the race for that nomination. he's not getting out of this campaign. what i think is interesting here is he is saying, i'm going to be very involved in helping to make sure to support democrats and to ultimately support whoever gets the nomination because i want to see an end to trump. and i think it's a good thing here. i think we have to pause and say he's decided to do what he thinks is best for the country. he believes donald trump must be limited to one term and must be out of there. and what he is saying is i'm not the person because of the contours, the dynamic of the democratic nomination process.
i'm not the person who's going to be able to do that, but i am absolutely going to continue working to make that happen. >> but, ryan, i don't know. is there another way to interpret this. obviously he doesn't believe in the howard schultz view of things which is go ahead and run in the middle. if he's saying he can win the general but he can't win the democratic primary -- i guess i'm playing logic games here. is there also the risk here that someone who can win the democratic primary cannot win the general? >> maybe. i'm not sure i agree with his logic that he was, you know, such a clear winner against trump in a general election. >> yeah. >> you know, he cares about two issues these days more than anything else. that is gun control and climate change, very, you know, admirable to care about those issues. but running a general election campaign against trump emphasizing those two issues above all else, and on the other hand, sort of religiously centrist on the size and role of government and economics, i'm
not sure that is where the sweet spot is against trump in a general election, right? it seems to be slightly more populist candidate who is a little more left of center on the welfare state and is not highlighting climate change frankly and gun control, which as important as those issues are, are not the front burner issues of the public right now. anyway, i'm not sure i agree with his analysis about how he'd stack up against trump. but he's got a ton of money. he cares a lot about politics. and i think his decision was, should he run for president, or should he just pour that money into these issues he cares about, which is what he's decided to do. >> all of this comes when you talk about the field, right, frank, as we've got a new poll. all these polls are going to come out and ask various questions. this is a quinnipiac poll. it asked 64% of registered voters saying donald trump
committed crimes before becoming president. that includes 33% of republicans. keep in mind republicans are less than a third of the electorate, right around a quarter. you've got 64% of americans saying that the president committed crimes before he got into office. that's an astounding number. >> yeah, and that is not good for the president or for his re-election prospects. i mean it suggests that all that we've seen, you know, over recent weeks and months, michael cohen's testimony, the accretion of revelations that have come from mueller's investigation, from people testifying oftn the hills. americans are paying attention and some of them waking up belatedly to donald trump's character. part of the deal with trump, part of the dynamic has always been that people have very low expectations for his morality. they understand that his character isn't sterling. even as he was elected president, most people said they didn't find him trustworthy. >> frank, i found it interesting
in the same poll, right, 22% of americans say he's a good role model for the kids, down from 27%. i'm wondering what suddenly caused the drop. i don't know what more was needed for that if you still think he's a role model. >> yeah. >> but this point of trustworthiness, which frank just raised, 30% of voters think the president is honest. 39% think he cares about average americans. what do those numbers say to you, ryan? are those significant at this point? >> well, what they say to me is, you know, given how polarized the country is and how roughly equal the two parties are, anytime you get a lopsided result like that, it makes me think, wow, there are a lot of republicans with really, really dim views of trump's personal character, whether he's committed crimes, whether he's trustworthy and a good role model. and yet he has, you know, anywhere from 80% to 95% support
among republicans. so you have this enormous chunk of republicans who know everything. they know all the bad stuff about trump, and they do not care. i think it's important for democrats to realize that as they go into these investigations in the house, to realize the bar is so, so high to convince folks on the other side of the aisle that there should be anything -- that whatever they uncover, no matter how bad it is, that you're going to change minds. >> thank you both very much. always a fair point to point out, yes, the approval rating among republicans is so very, very high. but when you talk about americans and you define yourself as a democrat or republican, republicans are, what, only 27% or 28% of the overall electorate. so it's not like you're looking at half of americans. you're looking at 90% of 27% just to give people a sense when we talk about re-election. >> absolutely. and you got a lot of people who aren't identifying as republicans, so they're taking themselves out of that pool. >> he needs to do better among independents.
former trump white house lawyer is calling bob mueller an american hero. what's behind his praise of mueller, and who is it? that's next. aaaah! nooooo... nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. [son loudly clears throat] sigh [mom and dad laugh] bounty, the quicker picker upper. (danny) after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. quickbooks. backing you.
mthat i'm 19% native american,d specifically from the chihuahua people. the level of details it gives you it's, it's incredible. 20 million members have connected to a deeper family story. order your kit at ancestry.com. audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible.
with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen9 to 500500 today. ♪
protect your family. visit tobaccofreeca.com. house democrats right now are staffing up with all of this broad, massive investigation into president trump. intel chairman adam schiff meantime hiring someone to helm it, a veteran prosecutor who will lead his committee's investigation. this person is a prosecutor with a hell of a lot of experience, a lot of it fighting the russian mobment mob. asha, when we talk about the former sdny prosecutor, daniel goldman, russian mob expertise, money laundering, racketeering, successfully prosecuted the genovese crime family. that also involved murder. this guy knows what he's doing.
>> absolutely. you know, in doj, you know, prosecutors will focus on specific kinds of violations and gain expertise in how to investigate and gather the evidence to prove that kind of activity. and when you're dealing with the mob, you are looking at organized crime. you're looking at rico violations, which i know garrett just wrote an amazing op-ed about. so he's going to have the strategy that will determine exactly what this committee is going to look for and how they are going to put it all together in terms of documents and gathering witness. >> so, garrett, that piece that asha just referenced in "the new york times," you make the case that prosecutors should investigate the president's businesses like they would handle the mafia. what exactly are you saying, implying? >> yeah. i think anyone who has organized crime expertise as an investigator or prosecutor who
listened to michael cohen testify before congress last week, what they heard was not the story of a businessman and a lawyer. they heard a racketeering enterprise. they heard a corrupt organization. you heard references to money laundering, wire fraud, bank fraud, tax fraud, charity fraud, all crimes that are sort of part of this specific law that the u.s. government has a specific tool that they have to go after organizations that have a corrupt core and center to them. in part, these racketeering laws, the rico law is used specifically to go after sort of the godfather figures, the mob bosses or mafia chieftains who are a step or two removed from the day to day crime because in the 1970s and 1980s, the government really struggled to
sort of figure out how to take down these mafia cases because you have mob bosses who speak in code. people who sort of talk in abstract terms or sort of give phrases that their associates now how to translate into action. and that's again exactly what we heard michael cohen saying almost word for word. >> i want to play it. when someone was asking him about how trump would tell him to do something, he was like, he never told me to do it. instead he gave this whole example about a tie, doesn't that tie look great? don't you think my tie looks great? you think it looks great? let me just play part of it. >> mr. trump did not directly tell me to lie to congress. that's not how he operates. he doesn't give you questions. he doesn't give you orders. he speaks in a code, and i understand the code because i've been around him for a decade. >> asha, then he did. he did talk about the tie. trump would say, you think this is a beautiful tie, don't you?
and that would be, you better go say it's a nice tie. does this sound like organized crime? does it sound like racketeering to you, asha? >> it does to me and for everyone who specialized in that, that is what it's echoed. and i just want to adhere, erin, that, you know, congress has a lot of advantages that even prosecutors and doj don't. in the fbi, you follow a very methodical path. you gather evidence. you're able to take the next step and then the next step, and you're gathering evidence. you know, we've already seen that these committees have sent out 81 document requests all at once. they can bring these people in. they can start to put this together. and also we already know that history here for trump is not good. there was a "new york times" article about the pattern of fraud that the trump family had been engaging in for a while. that's probably well past the statute of limitations. there's the trump foundation, which was dissolved in december for engaging in a pattern of
shockingly illegal behavior and using the charity as a slush fund. then there was the trump university, which was a rico civil suit which was ultimately settled. so, you know, i do think that this is the way that they are going to approach the trump organization itself. >> garrett, you know, one thing about all of this is of course these investigations are coming on the heels of mueller. we don't even have mueller, but we presume the heels and it seems from the way everybody is treating this, people don't think there's going to be much in it or they wouldn't be pushing ahead with their own investigations. former trump lawyer ty cobb had this to say about bob mueller on abc today. >> i think bob mueller is an american hero. i think the world of bob mueller. he is a very deliberate guy, but he's also a class act and a very justice-oriented person. i don't feel the same way about
mueller. i don't feel the investigation is a witch hunt. i wish it had happened on a quicker timetable, but it didn't. >> garrett, what do you make of that? this was the former attorney for the president for a long time on this investigation, and now saying, i don't agree. it's not a witch hunt. he's a man of integrity, a man of honor, an american hero. >> yeah. and this is by the way very consistent with what ty cobb has said and acted as throughout his time representing the president. remember, it was ty cobb who said that the white house should cooperate fully and was very cooperative in that sort of first year of the mueller investigation, something that will probably have some big downstream ramifications. i mean it was ty cobb and sort of that cooperation that led to don mcgahn, the white house counsel, spending 30 hours with bob mueller as part of this investigation. now, you know, ty cobb, for all of his very kind words and
cooperation with mueller, has been stunningly wrong about much of his view of the probe. he was the one after all saying that this would be over by thanksgiving 2017. >> right. >> which we just barely missed. but, you know, this is i think ty cobb sort of saying the truth. >> maybe back then he was saying what a certain person wanted to hear. thank you both very much. and we'll be right back.
♪ ♪ t-mobile will do the math for you. right now, when you join t-mobile, you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included for just one hundred bucks a month. house democrats set to vote this week on a resolution condemning anti-semitism, a rebuke of congresswoman ilhan omar who recently said pro-israel groups are pushing an
allegiance to a foreign country. the resolution does not mention open -- omar by name. peter, what do you think? i was talking to the chairman of the foreign relations committee, who is intimately involved with this. he's very, very careful to say that maybe what was said was anti-semitic but not to say that congresswoman omar was an anti-semite. >> yeah. my view is that ilhan omar made a mistake by diverting a conversation that really needs to happen into a conversation that really doesn't need to happen and treads on a lot of real sensitivities. we don't need a conversation about the fidelity and loyalty of american jews or apac. what we really do need is a conversation about palestinian human rights, and i think one of the roles that ilhan omar can play, which is crucially
important, especially for people who oppose all bigotry, is to talk about the enormous suffering and human rights abuses that take place for palestinians in the west bank. that's what she should be shining a light on. i think unfortunately by turning this conversation and those comments to the question of who may be, you know, have allegiance to a foreign government, she's actually diverted from the conversation we really need to have. >> and that of course plays in to a lot of anti-semitic things, right? as peter says, there's a conversation that needs to be had, and then there's a conversation that is sort of a dog whistle to certain groups that should never be encouraged. she has said in her defense, i know what it means to be american, and no one will ever tell me otherwise. you know, okay. look, she has spoken out very, very strongly on palestinian rights and human rights. >> sure. >> and yet her answer is to say, well, you're picking on me, so what? i can -- i can do it back? what do you --
>> you know wharks, what i can o is more about that congresswoman omar, and i watched the entire speech. i don't think it had been released until today because i had not seen it. in that she talked about speaking to her jewish constituents and trying to find common ground. it was not an anti-israel diatribe. this line now about allegiance is extremely troubling because herself as a visible muslim, we've been accused by the right of not being loyal to this country, being more loyal to islam than our own nation that we love. it's extremely troubling to touch on that by congresswoman omar. ironically in that speech, she talked about we can't have that discussion because of that other issue. >> tara, let me play what eliot engel, the chairman, said earlier tonight on this question of whether something that was an anti-semitic comment meant someone is an anti-semitic, and we're talking about congresswoman omar. here's how he answered it.
>> i'm hoping that she'll grow and she'll change. i'm hoping. some people change their beliefs. i'm hoping she'll change hers. i think what she said was wrong and hurtful. i think she should understand that, and i've been very vocal about it. and i feel very, again, strongl strongly, certainly against anti-semitism, but i think these tropes are not to be washed away. >> tara, what do you make of that response? is he dancing around the issue? i kind of think back to sometimes when we talk about some of the things that the president says or when we're talking about can someone say something racist and not be a racist, for example? i mean this sort of, you know, game of semantics we are playing now about anti-semitism. >> we just had this last week during the michael cohen hearing with mark meadows and that display and, you know, what happened with him with represent tlaib. look, this is what i think is going on here.
it's clear that representative omar knows exactly what she's saying. it's clear that she is wading into these issues in a way that, you know, out of the heart, so does your mouth speak. i see the same thing about donald trump and trump supporters. and the democrats are in a tough spot condemning her as much as they should and taking action the way they should because they're pressured by the fact that you have what are considered rock star freshmen coming in. she's one of the first muslim women ever elected to congress. she's on the cover of "rolling stone" magazine with nancy pelosi. the old guard democrats are trying to balance out this progressive new wing coming in without upsetting that part of the base. but enough is enough. how many times does this woman have to say things that are anti-semitic before she pays a real consequence? i'm tired of the apologies over and over and then she turns around and does it again and doubles down on it and doesn't take responsibility, and then engages in whataboutism. if you're going to condemn donald trump and his supporters for the things they have said and trafficked in, then you have to do the same thing for omar. and she in my opinion does not
deserve a seat on the foreign affairs committee. enough is enough. she should be kicked off that committee. >> can i respond to that? >> yeah, quickly. >> i really feel like there's a false equivalence here. >> how so? >> i think what ilhan omar said was really unfortunate. ilhan omar, again, if you look at the full text of her statement that she gave, and all of the statements she's made about israel and palestinians, ilhan omar, unlike donald trump, is a believer in human rights and equality for both jews and palestinians. the vast -- >> how do we know that for jews? >> because i've seen her entire record. >> she's supports bds. she supports bds, which doesn't allow israel's right to exist. how is that supporting jews? >> sorry. i'm an american jew who opposes the bds movement. but ilhan omar's statements have consistently been about recognizing the humanity and suffering of both jews and palestinians, and the vast majority of members of congress in both parties. >> okay. >> are entirely -- >> except when she's making
anti-semitic tropes. >> all right. i have to leave it there. >> that's a different issue. talk what's going on in palestinian. >> i have to leave it there. i will say that chairman engel said he is not going to request her to be removed from his committee. at this point, that's where this stands as of tonight. >> too bad. >> thanks to all of you. and thanks to all of you for watching. our coverage continues. 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.
audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible.
automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen9 to 500500 today. ♪ audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people.
and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen5 to 500500 today. ♪
♪ first jared, now ivanka, cnn learning the president overruled officials to get this daughter security. >> they started doing things they shouldn't be doing. they want to play games. the white house strategy that could be involved withholding documents. and north korea rebuilding a test missile facility. right and the summit of the president and kim jong-un. and a new