tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN March 13, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
any of them. >> and if you don't know a song from a proverb, best to avoid citing chapter and verse. >> two corinthians 2:17. that is the whole ball game. >> jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> anderson is next. good evening. we begin with breaking news. it could shed light on whether the president of the united states talked about possibly obstructing justice with the nation's top law enforcement official at the time. today former acting attorney general matthew whitaker met with the top democrat and republican on the house judiciary committee. now according to committee chairman jerry nadler who is a democrat, whitaker talked about what the president said to him in the wake of michael cohen's guilty plea about his former fixer as well as a southern district of new york investigation of cohen and the man known as individual one in court documents, also known as the president. however, at the top republican congressman doug collins said that is not what whitaker said.
discussing either of those things especially with a man at least nominally in charge of them raises questions about whether the president was trying to gabe influence unlawfully. last month whitaker refused to discuss what the president said to him but he did address one very specific question. >> did the president lash out at you after michael cohen's guilty plea for lying to congress about a trump organization project to build a tower in moscow? >> the president specifically tweeted that he had not lashed out. >> i'm asking you, mr. whitaker, did the president lash out at you. i'm not asking what he treated. i don't have confidence in the veracity of the tweet. >> congressman, that is based on unsub sh unsubstantiated. >> yes or no. did he lash out to you about the guilty plea. >> no, he did not. >> but president trump did not lash out at him but the real
question is what did the president say and that is what tonight's new reporting could shed light on. i say could because it is in question. cnn justice correspondent lara jarrett starts us off. so what exactly did whitaker say today and again, according to chairman nadler's accounting of events? >> well anderson, nadler said that whitaker didn't deny that the president called him to discuss the case of his former lawyer michael cohen and other personnel decisions in the southern district of new york. a little bit vague there about what exactly was discussed. and nadler said that whitaker was involved in conversations about the recusal of jeffy berman in the southern district of new york and whether prosecutors went too far to pursue the campaign finance case against cohen. why does this matter, now that whitaker is gone? as you said, it goes to the question of whether the president was trying to put his thumb on the scale in some way or influence the investigations into cohen where he was directly implicated and in some cases whitaker was on the receiving
end of these calls and maybe the only one who really knows what happened. >> so the ranking member on the committee, congressman doug collins, republican, he disputes almost the entirety of this account, correct. >> that is right. we have two diametrically opposed versions. collins pushed back on the interview and down playing what whitaker told the committee and saying there is simply no evidence that whitaker discussed the cohen case with the president but interestingly, my colleagues manu raju and others on the hill thought some of the campaign finance charges against cohen were, quote, specious, pointing to implicate john edwards on similar charges and according to gop aides who were in the room, anderson. >> i don't quite understand how nadler and -- the democrat and the republican can have such dia metticry opposed accounting of what whitaker actually said and
the meaning of it. is the transcript going to be released? is there any way to tell what whitaker actually said? >> well, unfortunately for us, this was behind closed doors today. there is no transcript. so like most things in life, it will come down to credibility determination and whose side you believe and which one sounds more like the facts. >> laura jarrett, thank you. you'll recall the question of whether the president asked him acting attorney general to take action against the southern district. it has come up before. such as this moment not long after whitaker's testimony. >> did you ask acting attorney general matthew whitaker to change the leadership of the investigation into your former personal attorney michael cohen? >> no. not at all. i don't know who gave you that -- that is more fake news. a lot of -- there is a lot of fake news out there. >> so does the president still believe that? seeing as kaitlin colins joins
us now from the white house. what is the white house saying about this? >> so far, no official statement from the white house about this. but expect them to point to what the republican in the room is saying about all of this. his version of events as just laid out down playing what chairman nadler described this as saying it is not nefarious and whitaker didn't reveal anything new about his conversations with the president saying that he only had conversations with staff about the cohen probe but of course because there is no transcript it is going to be one of those things where it is a he said/he said and so the white house could use the talking points from doug collins, the republican and be able to say without them being checked against any transcript of what matt whitaker actually said. >> and according to reporting, the president was unhappy that whitaker had to testify in front of congress in the first place. >> reporter: oh, yeah. he did not like seeing matt whitaker getting grilled and he liked doug collins in his view of things pointed out what he said was absurd testimony he was
having to give and the president also didn't like his relationship with matt whitaker coming under such scrutiny. now whitaker would not answer questions about the president lashing out at him only pointing to the president's tweet. though of course we know from our reporting that that happened not just once, but twice when the president was rattled by the developments in the michael cohen probe in new york. >> kaitlin collins from the white house. thank you very much. want to get reaction from the leading voice on the senate judiciary committee senator richard blumenthal of connecticut joins me. senator, what do you make of this? if chairman nadler's account is correct, whitaker did not deny the president called him to discuss the michael cohen case, what does that say to you? >> what it says to me is that the president was attempting to influence potentially that investigation in new york where he was an unindicted co-conspirator and called individual number one and he was that person in a possible campaign finance conspiracy
involving michael cohen. the ome way to really reconcile these two accounts from collins nadler is to take an earlier version from republican counsel who said that whitaker insisted he could not remember any conversation with the president. perhaps congressman collins means by do not remember that in effect he denied those conversations. but chairman nadler has been very clear, he said there was a conversation as indicated by the fact that whitaker did not deny it. >> so the -- is it clear to you, though, what exactly is being alleged -- okay, is nadler saying he didn't deny there was a conversation, the idea that the president was talking about personnel issues in the southern district of new york, which i
assume -- the biggest personnel issue is the fact that the recusal by the person that he appointed to head the southern zriktd-district of new york related to the cohen case, i guess is there any way to find out what was said in that meeting? is it possible the transcript should be released or would be released? >> the transcript should be released. just like i've insisted that the entire mueller report should be released. and very possibly matt whitaker should be brought back before the committee in public under oath. chairman nadler is a very careful and meticulous attorney. and he uses words carefully. there is a lot of smoke here. which indicates fire. more questions than answers. and very likely there needs to be a release of this transcript, but also more testimony to establish exactly what whitaker is saying. because he seemingly is playing
both sides of this street in a very disingenuous way. >> so even if the president did call whitaker and talked about the cohen case, if no action was actually taken by whitaker, is there any issue in terms of legality of it. >> there is very definitely an issue. if the president called the acting attorney general of the united states about an ongoing investigation of him in the southern district of new york, where he was named as a an unindicted co-conspirator, any conversation would be wildly improper. and evidence of potential obstruction of justice. even if nothing came of it in terms of whitaker acting. clearly the president 's intent in calling whitaker was to influence the outcome. clearly that kind of attempt, whether it produced action on whitaker's part was improper,
verging on outright obstruction of justice. so this report is potentially explosive. whitaker has denied very specifically in his opening statement in public that kind of conversation. but even some backtracking indicates that perhaps there was such a conversation and whitaker should remember it. >> what is the law in between the president doing something as you say improper, and doing something illegal, attempting to obstruct justice? obviously there is many things that may be improper and unseam -- unseemly which ch are not actually illegal. >> key question, we need to know more facts. before we reach a conclusion, we need to know what the president's actual words were and what his intent was, to be gleaned from those words. we need to know whether whitaker took any action. how whitaker interpreted it. we're not likely to know those
facts in the next 24 hours. the only way to really obtain them is to have whitaker back and chairman nadler has been pursuing meticulously an investigation that has historic consequences. the president's potential conversations with whitaker indicate that he's treating the department of justice like his own personal attorneys. and the american public has a right to wonder why is whitaker so vague and disingenuous if there is nothing to hide. >> senator blumenthal. i appreciate it, thank you very much. >> thank you. joining us now is neal cad ill who was solicitor general during the obama administration and cnn chief analyst jeffy toobin and usa today columnist kirsten powers. and now a nondenial is not the same thing as a confirmation?
>> it is not. but there is a very simple solution here. and senator blumenthal mentioned it, which is just bring him back. bring him back for public testimony and have him spell out in public what went on in this conversation or conversations plurl -- plurl with the president about the cohen investigation in the southern district. because this couldn't be more important. remember, richard nixon was forced out of office because on june 23rd, 1972, the so-called smoking gun tape, he was caught using the cia to tell the fbi to stop investigating watergate. so the issue of the president controlling the department of justice regarding investigations of himself is both historically and legally very important. >> neal, if this conversation did happen, and it was just a conversation and it was the president venting or saying gosh, i think what is happening to michael cohen is -- i think
they're going too far in the southern district but nothing came of it, as in no action took place, does that then besides perhaps being inappropriate, does that -- is that illegal? >> yes. still devastating for the president both criminally and as a matter of politically. so it would be one thing anderson if the president were having that conversation with you and going in and criticizing -- criticizing the southern district investigation and the like. but here he's doing it to his hand-picked lackey, this guy matthew whitaker who is the most unqualified person to ever serve as attorney general in the history of the united states, who was put in there for one reason, one qualification, is he's gone on your network and dised the mueller probe and so it is pretty obvious what is going on at this point. this isn't vepting to you and the criminal intent there could very well be met because it
doesn't require completion, it just requires an attempt to try and do something that is illegal. >> neal, do you think he's the most unqualified person to ever head the department of justice in the entire history of the united states? >> oh, yes. and i think even donald trump agrees, which is why he didn't try to put him up for a nomination and put barr in. this person is really -- he really had one qualification and we're seeing it play out in the conversation today with chairman nadler. >> kirsten -- >> in fair ngs we should point out -- >> go ahead, jeff. >> we should point out that robert kennedy was close in terms of unqualified. he turned out to be a good attorney general but whitaker and kennedy were close in terms of qualifications. >> okay. kirsten, here we are again. two heads of the committee, the democrat and republican, with two directly opposite versions of what happened. it's -- and this makes me nervous because we don't really
know what happened or what was said. >> right. well the thing is that congressman nadler is saying that he pressed him and he wasn't answering the question. so that is not the same thing as necessarily giving an answer. in the public testimony he was basically saying he wasn't going to talk about conversations that he had with the president. and so i think him not answering shouldn't be construed as somehow giving information. i do think it is true that he isn't seen as being probably the most trustworthy person in the sense that he was hired clearly as a trump loyalist who wasn't qualified for the job. and so it is not hard to believe that maybe he was doing the president's bidding here. but you have the ranking republican member saying explicitly that this didn't happen. and it is hard to square that. unless he somehow really is playing with the language, but he's -- he said very clearly,
that this didn't happen. that he, in fact, said he did not have any conversations with the president about cohen at all. >> and jeff, what whitaker denied under oath in his prior testimony, that the president lashed out at him, and he denied that, it doesn't exactly give him much cover of what constitutes lashing out could be subjective and it was -- that term was used in a report that he was basically denying. >> right. and the notion that matthew whitaker -- where it came out that he doesn't exactly remember what went on in this conversation. you know what it is when you talk to the president of the united states and you're the attorney general, especially if you are the attorney general for just a few weeks. it is a big deal. it is a big deal in your entire life. and the idea that matthew whitaker, well i don't know, we were talking and i don't
remember. that is absurd. the question is would he agree to answer the question if he came back. this seems to me of significant importance that the house committee could go to court and try to find him in context -- contempt if he tried to invoke executive privilege. because this is exactly the kind of conversation that led to the resignation of richard nixon. the abuse of the justice department. this is something that the congress should investigate. and not rely on like he said/he said on a closed-door meeting. >> neal, isn't executive privilege, the white house has to invoke not -- not matthew whitaker? >> yes. the white house is the only individual -- entity that can invoke it and here i do think there is a problem because, anderson, whitaker didn't just previously testify in congress that the president didn't lash
out he also testified in sbons response to a question of did the white house reach out to you in some way to express dissatisfaction? answer, no. so whitaker didn't have any problem rec -- problem remembering that a month and i 100% agree with jeffrey toobin and i remember every one conversation with the attorney general and they are big deals and dollars to donuts, i remember every conversation with the president of the united states. so this idea that he just kind of forgets is really, really tough. >> stand by, everybody. i want to take a quick break. there is more coming up. we'll look at paul manafort sentencing today. his additional prison time. what it might mean for the ongoing mueller investigation and the new charges he's facing tonight and why they may be so important just in terms of a potential presidential pardon on the federal charges because these are state charges. also tonight, exclusive details on an e-mail obtained by cnn
that seemed to promise michael cohen he could sleep well because he had friends in, quote, high places. the interpretation of that is now open according to where you stand. there is people denying it means what it sounds like it means. we'll be right back. what sore muscles? what with advpounding head? .. advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil. or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable,
with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ready to treat differently with a pill? that rocking chair would look grahh, new house, eh?e. well, you should definitely see how geico could help you save on homeowners insurance. nice tip. i'll give you two bucks for the chair. two?! that's a victorian antique! all right, how much for the recliner, then? wait wait... how did that get out here?
that is definitely not for sale! is this a yard sale? if it's in the yard then it's... for sale. oh, here we go. geico. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance. and back pain made it hard to sleep and 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.
the big drug companies don't see they see us as profits. we're paying the highest prescription drug prices in the world so they can make billions? americans shouldn't have to choose between buying medication and buying food for our families. it's time for someone to look out for us. congress, stop the greed. cut drug prices now. aww. yaaaayyy!!! aww. yaaaayyy!!! aww. yaaaayyy!!! we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e ♪hotwire.com stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate i switched to miralax for my constipation. the nerves in your colon. miralax works with the water in your body to unblock your system naturally. and it doesn't cause bloating, cramping, gas, or sudden urgency. miralax. look for the pink cap. i love my babies, love my boys.
since i'm a truck driver, you know there's times that i'm gone for, like, three weeks at a time. even if i'm 3,000 miles away, i'm connected with my boys. every day i can video chat with them. i could be in the middle of wyoming. even if i'm like waaay... out here, i can still reach my kids. baby, you-- you see me? (sons) hey, daddy! (vo) there for you when it matters most. unlimited on the best network now comes with apple music on us. get a free galaxy s10e when you buy the new galaxy s10. only on verizon. paul manafort, president trump's former campaign chairman was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison and the second appearance before a federal court judge in as many weeks this time on obstruction and conspiracy. amy berman jackson sentenced him to an additional 3.5 years as another judge sentenced him to almost four years on a series of financial fraud charges. then moments later, minutes
later the manhattan district attorney cyrus vance charged him with falsifying documents and conspiracy. and now with jeffrey toobin and kirsten powers. and there is this waiting game for robert mueller to finish up. unclear when in a will happen. there is reporting it would be two weeks ago and there was talk from the trump supporters it would be a year ago. who does it benefit this kind of waiting game? the president, so he can keep up his westchester hu-- his witch own the conspiracy or collusion or does it benefit anybody? >> i do think it would be hard if the mueller report came out and enough of it was released that people could feel like we were getting the full story and he didn't find anything in terms of collusion. i think obviously republicans would say, okay, we're done with this, let's move on and
democrats might still want to continue to investigate. so in a sense, having it not come out probably, i would say, helps democrats more. but that said, i'm saying that under the assumption if they didn't find something. if they do find something, then obviously that would be very bad for the president if he found collusion. >> and jeff, mueller's prosecution of manafort, that ended because roger stone next on the docket and we learned that michael flynn's cooperation is still ongoing. over thaj that, what is left for mueller to resolve other than delivering his report. >> not much. >> stuff we just don't know about? >> well, the great open question is whether there are more charges to be filed. the roger stone trial is probably going to take place in the fall. it may be run largely by the u.s. attorney's office in washington. there are the two indictments of the russian officials in connection with that the hacking
and social media stuff but those people will never show up for trial. so i don't think there is any trial there. so at least based on what we know, if there are no more indictments, and that is a big if, all that is left is the report. and we don't know if the report is going to be five pages or 500 pages. the regulation that neal played a big part in writing gives mueller and the attorney general a lot of flexibility here and we don't know how -- how mueller and barr are going to exercise it. >> and neal, it is also been reported that the mueller probe is funded through september. does that mean he might -- if it is still working on this probe all the way up until then? maintaining a staff and keeping -- that there is more to come? >> well, he's under no
obligation to spend those funds so he could close up shop earlierme earlier, but i think jeff is right to say there is a lot we don't know here and mueller has run a ship without any leaks. but the one thing we do know, which happened today, instead of the future, think about the present and you have the president's number uno, top campaign official going to jail for 7.5 years. that doesn't happen. look over american history and i think you would find one president whose campaign chair went to jail and that is not a good precedent for president trump. which is mitchell who was nixon's campaign chief. so this is a real devastating thing to think that our president put in charge of his campaign a guy going to jail for so long and the number two guy, rick gates, also going to jail. >> kirsten -- >> and another fact -- >> go ahead, jeff. >> no, but -- go ahead, anderson, it is okay. >> go ahead.
another fact. i like facts. go ahead. >> well, it's that manafort is really over as far as the mueller investigation is concerned. he tried to cooperate, it was a fiasco and he lied and wasn't -- so the idea that there may be something further with manafort in terms of cooperation or other evidence or other testimony, it is just not going to happen. so, yes, he's been sentenced to 7.5 years and people could agree or disagree about whether that is a good sentence, but he's just over as a witness in a case as far as federal court is concerned. >> but kirsten, there is the state now charges in new york which are fascinating and just from a political standpoint, i'm wondering how you think that plays. because you could make the argument that republicans could point to that and -- or anybody could point though to that and say, well look, that is politically 340e9 v
politically -- politically motivated and announced the charges right after the sentencing of manafort and it makes it pardon-proof, if, in fact, he's found guilty in new york on state charges, that is not something that the president can pardon him for. how do you think it -- and the flip side is for people that want to see manafort spend more time in prison and not be pardoned, this gives them the likelihood that even if he's pardoned by the president, he will spend time in jail. >> yeah, i mean, i think to a certain extent the lawyers could answer that better than me. everything i know about the southern district of new york i learned on billions. so i -- it seems unlikely to me that -- >> good show. >> that they would do something like that. but they would -- that this entire thing would be constructed and they would charge these crimes as i guess what republicans might be claiming happened that it was some sort of politically mo
motiva motivated and it doesn't seem that is how the law works but the lawyers here could speak more to that. >> and certainly they have -- the state authorities have been work on for a long time. we'll talk about this more later. thank you. coming up, did someone from the presidential orbit dangle the idea of a possible pardon in front of michael cohen in april of last year right after cohen's office was raided end was charged. we'll have the details on an e-mail cnn has obtained next. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.
an exclusive tonight, krp has obtained a copy of an e-mail promising michael cohen that he could sleep well because he had friends in high places. the e-mails from april of 2018 was sent to cohen by an attorney who said that he was speaking with the president's lawyer rudy giuliani. with that cast of character, it is a story full of people that aren't known for truth so gloria borger joins us to see what it means. >> so what did the e-mails say? >> they are from april of 2018. after michael cohen's home and his office were raided. and they're between michael
cohen and an attorney bob costello and they mostly focus on the relationship between the white house, the president, and michael cohen. let me just read to you from one of them. one of them from the attorney. i spoke with rudy. very, very positive. you are loved. sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places. now anderson, we don't have michael cohen's response. and we're hoping to get that. but we do not have that. so we also know that these are documents that the congressional committees have. >> and this was -- there is an e-mail from michael cohen to the attorney talking about setting up some kind of a -- or referencing making a contact, is that right? >> it was from the attorney. it was from the attorney to michael cohen. we only have the e-mails from the attorney to michael cohen. and in that, he talks about -- he said that rudy giuliani was
grateful for setting up this kind of a back channel. so we don't really know what that means. cohen sympathizers say this is the first step in dangling a pardon. is that what this was about? were they trying to place kind of a mole as an attorney working with michael so that attorney could tell rudy giuliani everything michael cohen was thinking. this is of course before michael cohen declared his independence in july. and i spoke with the attorney last night, robert costello who call the that utter nonsense and said, look, what we're trying to do is smooth out what had become a rocky relationship between cohen and the president and there were storied written at the time about the president being angry with michael and vice versa and he said michael asked him to please make sure they all know that i'm good, as you know they were part of a joint defense agreement at that time.
>> and shortly after the first e-mail was sent, the president had some kind words for michael cohen on twitter. >> yeah. the president did. he said michael is a business man for his own account, lawyer, who i have always liked and respected. most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble. even if it means lying or making up stories. sorry. i don't see michael doing that. despite the horrible witch hunt and the dishonest media. so the president at this point was making the case, i gotcha, michael. i know you're on my team and i think -- look, everyone at this point after the raid on michael's hope and office w-- h and office was worried what did the feds get? so they were both worried. what did the feds get. and you could see there was concern from the white house too. >> fascinating. gloria borger, thanks so much. >> sure. so earlier i spoke with congressman jim heinz from a member of the house intelligence committee.
>> congressman heims, this e-mail to michael cohen that he could, quote, sleep well tonight because he has friends in high places, i wonder how you interpret th interpret that. >> it points to something i can't get into specificity and the conversation with michael cohen before he was before the intelligence committee and there are real questions and coming from public as well, there are real questions on the topic of pardon dangling. and again, i can't be terribly specific about it but i think it is far from the end of that conversation. i think that when the intelligence committee transcripts are released, there will be some very uncomfortable days for a number of people and there will be questions to follow up on. >> so, again, as you said, you can't go into specifics, but you're saying based on what you learned in the committee investigation, can you say if you have a clearer picture of what actually happened here in regards to a pardon?
>> well, you see a fairly clear picture emerging from what is public. the president tweets alone where he calls people who are cooperating and rats and weak and when he praised those not cooperating as strong and it is language right out of the godfather. so answer your specific question, yes. now, remember, michael cohen is not somebody whose testimony you take at face value but if michael cohen were to produce e-mails or produce written information that was corroborating it would cause you to think maybe there is something to what he's saying. and as i said before i think this is a story not fully explained at all. >> and that is the difficulty. michael cohen is a convicted liar. the president has certainly lied and stretched the truth and we all know his record on that. with so many people with difficulty telling the truth, is
it even possible to figure out conclusively where the truth actually lies? >> sure it is. and i would point to the -- to michael cohen showing up and handing over checks signed by the president backing up his statement that i was reimburse the by the president for paying hush money to stormy daniels. there is documentation and again i don't want to get into too much detail but he provided documentation to the committee, these are people who communicate by e-mail and they communicate by text. though the president does not, the president's people do. and again, i think there is much more to the story that -- part of the reason we're being quiet about exactly what happened in the testimony of michael cohen is that his testimony and the information that he provided will probably cause us to call in some of those people. and we don't want them to know exactly what michael cohen said prior to having the opportunity to speak to them. >> and when does a transcript of the testimony get released? is it when all is said and done? >> well, unlike some of the other stuff from the russia investigation, there is no
question of classified material being released because michael cohen didn't have access to classified material. so that won't be an impediment with the other transcripts or other transcripts. again, the one dynamic keeping the transcripts from being released right now is -- and you can draw the conclusion and infer what you will from this, we will almost certainly want to bring in additional witnesses as a result of the testimony that michael cohen gave in the two days before my committee and we won't necessarily want those witnesses to know exactly what it was that michael cohen provided or said about them. >> and just lastly, i want to get your take on the breaking story, former acting attorney general whitaker would not deny the president called him to discuss the cohen case as well as personnel decisions in the southern district according to congressman nadler. >> yeah, that is correct. and i guess it surprises pretty much no one that matthew whitaker, when he was acting attorney general, that he was acting in defense of the president. this is of course what an awful
lot of the president's people have done. i think the president himself acknowledged that whitaker's role was there and certainly whitaker made statements earlier that prior to his becoming attorney general acting that would suggest that. so no surprise. now the big question is there is a difference between people talking about stuff and things actually being done. so the question for us as the body of government charged with oversight is did the acting attorney general take any actions which would have compromised any of the investigations of trump or the trump administration or more broadly the russia question. >> congressman heims, i appreciate it. >> thank you. so there is more breaking news tonight. ahead including president trump's decision to ground the boeing 737 max after two deadly crashed in the last five months. question one, why was the united states the last to do it and what was behind the decision? we'll have that ahead. we humans are strange creatures. other species avoid pain and struggle.
we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours,
attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor okay, i never thought i'd say this, but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. surprised? it's called always discreet boutique. it looks and fits like my underwear. i know what you're thinking. how can something this pretty protect? hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel for incredible protection. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique. new color. new size. ♪ pardon the interruption but this is big!
now with t-mobile get the samsung galaxy s10e included with unlimited data for just $40 a month. the healthcare provider-patient it's like nothing else. the trump-pence administration just issued a gag rule which would block providers across the country from giving full information to women about their reproductive healthcare, a move the american medical association said would "dangerously interfere with the patient-physician relationship." they trust that i will be providing them with complete information. with the gag rule, the consequences would be devastating for women in my community and across the country.
tonight the newest version of the world's best-selling airliner is now grounded in this country. and one question is why now? the other is why not ground the boeing 737 max series sooner. why did it take two deadly crashes and practically the rest -- the whole rest of the world aci -- acting first befor the president made his announcement late today or did everyone else jump the gun and act before enough facts were in. here is part of what the president said. >> airlines are agreeing with
us, the safety of the american people and all people is paramount concern. our hearts go out to all of those who lost loved ones. to their friends and their families and in both the lion crashes and -- that involved the 737 max aircraft. it is a terrible, terrible thing. >> the president said the federal aviation administration and transportation department agreed with the decision a short time later the acting faa director said the decision was his, meaning the faa. he said the agency just today got enough information to see similarities between the earlier lion air disaster and the crash of the ethiopian airlines max 8 this week. investigators suspect a hardware and software system designed to push the planes nose down when it is pointing too high might have instead acting to put the plane into a dive.
the faa has data suggesting the ethiopia 737 may have followed a similar flight path. you recall yesterday after a phone call from the boeing ceo, the president did not take any action. today after another call from boeing he did. here to talk about it is former department of transportation inspector mary scavo, an analyst and plaintiffs attorney for activists and families and including in cases against the boeing company. also cnn aviation correspondent richard quest joins us. so the grounding of the planes, what does it mean for air travel in the u.s. because there are not a lot of the planes actually being used, correct? >> no, there is not a lot. but they are in some key markets, southwest has a couple of dozen. american similarly. and united has the max 9. and so we're already starting to see some delays and some lines as the airlines switch the planes out. and put in replacements. and it is all happening at a time of course when capacity is
pretty tight at the moment. there aren't a lot of spare planes about so i would expect to see a bit of confusion, a few delays and cancellations as the airlines pretty much learn to switch out the new planes, find replacements and lease or borrow or bring those out of retirement to make up the difference. >> mary, why do you think the faa didn't move quicker on this compared to the rest of the world, basically? >> well, the faa usually takes its cues from boeing and not just this but in many other instances and following boeing's lead. boeing after the accident, after the first and second one said the plane was safe and insisted there was nothing wrong with it and didn't need major change and the faa simply agreed with thex. and you could see that in the air witness directive and the additional directions put out on march 11th after the second crash, the faa said well based on what boeing has told us, so they were following the lead of
the manufacturer. >> so -- so how long, richard, will it take for this issue to be fixed? we're talking a matter of months or weeks or do we know? >> yes. >> months. >> yes, i think you are. i looked back at the 787 grounding and that went on just over 90 days. the difference slightly is here that boeing has already done much of the work and the patch and the fix and the repair because it was working on the lion air. but there hasn't -- that hasn't been put into practice yet. and it hasn't been authorized. and there is one big difference i think with this fix over the 787. with the 787 there were fires and problems and delays. but there were no deaths. here you have had two aircrafts with very serious loss of life. so before boeing will be allowed to put in the fix, and it to be recertified and that is another question -- the faa is clearly going to have to answer
questions that they certified the 787 and that has serious problems. they certified the 737 max 8 and that had deadly problems. so i don't think there is a rush to get these planes back in the air. i think you are looking at weeks, maybe even months. >> mary, i want to go back to something you said, the faa takes the lead of the manufacturer. >> right. >> does that make sense to you? does that -- i know you're a profess plaintiff's attorney and gone after boeing. does it make the sense the faa would take the lead of the company? seems like a conflict of interest. >> no. when i was inspector general of the d.o.t., we were constantly investigating why the faa seemed to be a toothless tiger and took the boeing's word for it and took the airlines' words for it. it's not just for boeing, it's not like they have a special treatment for boeing. the faa does its job through a series largely of designated inspectors and, for example, at boeing, the inspectors, the
surrogates, if you will, to do the inspections for the faa, often are picked from boeing employees. i was tasked to look at the certification of the 777 and there they had 4 million lines of code and 150 computers, and the faa readily admitted, no, we don't know if the computers are safe, we don't know what the lines of code do. all we mknow is they followed or procedure and the designated inspector said they did. 95% of that plane was self-certified so that's how they do it, through a series of designated inspectors so they defer what they will readily admit is to the knowledge of boeing as it outstrips the knowledge of the faa. >> wow. it's fascinating. mary schiavo, appreciate you being with us, richard quest as well. i want to check in with chris, see what he's working on for "cuomo primetime." >> the theory becomes the faa had every reason -- you heard
schiavo refer to this rotisserie of people going from the private sect tore the public sector. we thought we were going to stop that. that's part of draining the swamp. we hear all about that. tonight we're going to look deeper at that, coop. i have somebody here who understands what the faa does what it does, to reveal what we all suspect here, this timing doesn't make any sense. the way this has happened just doesn't make any sense, so we heed to ma need to make sense of it going guard. also we're going to look at the latest developments what we see in the cohen case and what this president has done and whether it is wrong. not simply criminal. we got the rnc chair here tonight to talk about her thoughts on that, what matters, politically, and how does it affect 2020. >> all right. lot to cover tonight, chris. we'll see you about seven minutes from now. coming up, the saddest "ridiculist" ever. we'll be right back. ver almost . even rooftop parking.
strange forces at work? only if you're referring to gravity-and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.
we're all under one roof now. congratulations. thank you. how many kids? my two. his three. along with two dogs and jake, our new parrot. that is quite the family. quite a lot of colleges to pay for though. a lot of colleges. you get any financial advice? yeah, but i'm pretty sure it's the same plan they sold me before. well your situation's totally changed now. right, right. how 'bout a plan that works for 5 kids, 2 dogs and jake over here? that would be great. that would be great. that okay with you, jake? get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change from td ameritrade investment management. ohh yeah! ohh yeah! ohh we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e [dophin making] e-e-e-e
"ridiulist." tonight it's profoundly bitterswe bittersweet. the brains behind this segment, one of my longtime writers on this program, the brilliantly fun funny faith kleppinger leaving for new adventures. for more years than i can remember, she's been making me smile and everyone here smile with her wit, warmth, well-placed puns and more than occasional profanities. i, of course, have done my part. i giggle uncontrollably and offer an occasional public apology which i've had to do several times thanks to faith. it's faith who's made these last few minutes every night pure candy. mike & ike do not exist. they are got real people. they are candy. and as such, do not possess genitals. sourpatch kids are not real kids. starbursts don't have real stars in them. and there isn't an actual ranch where the jolly rancher looks. yankee candle unveiled its first
ever limited edition candle collection inspired by and created just for men. it turns out some smaller companies have been trying to tap into this market. original man candle, for instance, has draft beer, pot roast, and rodekill-scented offerings. can't you smell the roadkill? totally take holiday cooked up by a seinfeld writer like festivus. it's a real thing. obscure but real. i'm not going to let you do this one. sorry. last night on a flight from paris to dublin, depardu reportedly paea peed on the floor. oh, pit's full of puns. all i can say is they should thank their lucky stars it wasn't depar 2. sorry. that made me giggle every time i read it. he hasn't commented on this incident.
depar 2. i know you got it, but -- [ laughter ] all right. sorry. [ laughter ] all right. [ laughter ] sorry. this has actually never happened to me. always see this sort of thing on youtube. ah, yes, gerard departu, dingus day which i had to apologize for, the segments that turned me into a human blooper real. thank you, faith. without faith, without you, i'd be l another guy telling toilet jokes if front of cnn and blitzer has that audience locked up, though. i wish you great writing and
continued success in all you do. truthfully, i've been dreading this day for years because i always knew that one day you would decide to use your remarkable talents in other ways and now we should all have to muddle along without you because if i've learned anything over the years, is that you got to have faith in life, and on "the ridiculist." thank you, faith. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." >> she may have given you the words but nobody could come up with that laugh, coop. >> yeah -- >> that's all you. >> a 12-year-old girl, maybe. >> no, no. >> would come up with that laugh. >> very manly. very manly. my dad used to laugh the same way. thank you, coop. thank you, faith. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime." did the president try to obstruct the michael cohen case, did he try to float a pardon? we have two new sources of concern rl concern, one are e-mails obtained by cnn showing an odd back channel between cohen and the president and what was said. the other comes from what was