tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN March 18, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
in my body. >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> and thanks for joining us. don't forget, you can watch "outfront" anytime. just go to cnn go. anderson starts now. good evening. there's breaking news tonight and it has to do with the pending mueller findings and whether the white house is going to try to hide some of the information before congress and you get to see it through executive privilege. it would, of course, set up a huge political battle. i want to go to cnn senior white house correspondent, pamela brown, who's breaking the story. so explain what you've learned about this? >> well, anderson, we've learned that white house lawyers expect to review whatever version of mueller's report attorney general barr submits to congress before it reaches lawmakers. and this could be a flash bang. and it sets up a political battle over this hotly anticipated document. these attorneys in the white house want the white house to have an opportunity to claim an executive privilege over any information drawn from documents and interviews with white house officials over the last couple
of years. these sources we spoke with said, but the white house's review of executive privilege claims, anderson, are within its legal purview, but it could set up this political battle over this perception, at the very least, of president trump trying to shield certain information from the public about an investigation that has swirled around him since the first day of his presidency. as one source i spoke to close to the white house put it to me, the source said, look, there's always tension between what looks best politically and what represents the interests of the institution. but preserving executive privilege, trump's political optics in the white house in this case, anderson. >> and president trump's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, suggested that executive privilege could be used to use parts of the report from public view. it's not up to the president's personal attorneys, though, it's up to the white house? >> the president's outside personal attorneys do not decide whether to assert executive privilege. that's up to the president and the white house counsel's office. and we should note, executive privilege allows the president's
conversations with other officials to be kept confidential if he chooses to assert it. justice department lawyers could advise him against certain assertions, if they don't feel it's legally defensible. but if president trump does assert executive privilege, the decision could be litigated in court, if it's challenged, which democrats would almost certainly do, anderson. >> yeah. pamela brown, thank you very much. for more, i want to go to cnn's chief white house correspondent, jim acosta. jim, what are you learning about what was behind all of these tweets from the president this weekend? >> reporter: well, anderson, i talked to a number of sources over the last day or so and essentially, what i'm hearing from my sources over here at the white house and people who talk to the president on occasion is that this is -- this is really more of the same, of the president trying to throw out distractions, try to change the narrative, dominate their narrative. so there is not as much attention being paid to the mueller report. we do know that over the weekend, speaking of what pam was just talking about, he did tweet that he would like to see republicans up on capitol hill err on the side of transparency, when it comes to this mueller report. so it's interesting, if they
decide to scale back what the public can see, that would be running counter to what the president said over the weekend, when he said that he would like to see full transparency when it comes to the mueller report. but getting back to these tweets, it is never a good day for the administration, when you have top white house officials coming out like kellyanne conway, when her husband, george conway, a prominent d.c. attorney, is saying something, you know, along the lines that the president suffers from some sort of personality disorder, she was disagreeing with that. and because of the president's tweets over the weekend and the way he responded to the terrorist attack in new zealand, you had mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff saying the president is not a white supremacist. it's never a good time when they have to respond to the president's rhetoric like this. but anderson, i will tell you, from talking to senior white house officials, people who advise the president, know what the president is up to when it comes to his twitter feed, he is very much trying to dominate the narrative, change the narrative with these tweets. we saw a lot of that over the weekend. i talked to one source. i said, does this sound like the president is starting to worry
about what's going to come out in the mueller report? and this source said, no, basically, it's just more of the same from the president's twitter feed. there is a sense, though, from talking to my sources, anderson, that this mueller report is going to come out soon. that they're anticipating that it will come out soon. they're trying to read the tea leaves like everybody else, but their sense is that we should be hearing from the special counsel's office sooner rather than later, anderson. >> jim acosta, jim, thanks. for more on the breaking news, i want to bring in john dean and two of our legal analysts, laura coates and jeffrey toobin. technically, jeff, mueller works at the justice department, which answers to the white house. the president can legally exert executive privilege, no? >> absolutely. and it's worth remembering, people may remember the star report and how long that was and detailed. he was an independent counsel. he didn't report to the justice department. he reported to a three-judge panel that appointed him. mueller's in a very different situation here. mueller is an employee of the department of justice.
so if -- and william barr, the attorney general, is his boss. and if he says, this report will not be disclosed or parts of it will not be disclosed, mueller has no remedy except to resign in protest, because he's simply a subordinate. >> although mueller could be, then, subpoenaed by house democrats and to testify about what was in the report? >> hke could. and that's where the legal complexities begin about whether congress would have access to that, although executive privilege protects disclosure from -- disclosure to congress, as well. the issue, of course, is that executive privilege is not something that's easy to define. and the courts have never really defined it in any great detail. if the president wants to assert it, the odds are that for one thing, the clock could run out, because the court battle could take so long, but also, there's a lot of deference in the courts to executives about his own privilege. >> john, all the talk we've been hearing from the president's
allies for the past couple of years, about mueller being able to do his job without interference, what is that worth if mueller's findings can essentially be edited by the white house? >> well, it's not worth much, if that's the case. and i think, first of all, we've got to understand that executive privilege is not going to reach back to the campaign and protect events that occurred during the campaign. it's not going to reach the transition, either. it will only really relate to potentially activities that occurred after he became president. so that's one limiting factor. to do -- to invoke it, they're going to also have to, i think, provide what's often known as a privilege log, where they're explaining what they're excluding and why they're seeking to exclude it. and executive privilege breaks down to a number of areas. is it communications, is it attorney/client privilege? is it a document that they feel they can't release? all of that will have to be detailed. anderson, this is really no surprise. this is kind of standard
procedure for something, a document this hot or anything that's going to go to the congress. so i really have not surprised to learn this at all. >> and just to explain a little bit for our viewers, there's a reason there is such a thing as executive privilege. one wants a president to be -- and i think we just lost john. i'll go to laura about this. laura, i think one of the things that is confusing is that, you know, one wants a president to be able to have communications with people that remain private, for obvious reasons. >> absolutely, you want to encourage that candor, because that really is the fundamental issue of how you have separation of powers, you want each particular autonomous and equally potent branch of government to be able to talk amongst themselves and to be able to have the candor that can have the vigorous debate, et cetera. you want that. but what you do not want is the head of the executive branch, which, remember, their charge is actually to enforce the law of the land, to be able to use executive privilege to somehow
circumvent the fair administration of justice. and that was -- that was richard nixon's actual problem there. the courts had this idea of executive privilege being at the fulcrum of two important balancing notions. one being the right of having that candor. and the other one about the public's right through congress to know information and to be able to fairly administer justice. so, you know, john was absolutely right, the notion of, this can't go back to the actual campaign. executive privilege means you were actually a part of and led the executive branch. also, mueller's charge has been about the campaign. and frankly, the assumption that the privilege would relate to any and all the communications would be false. because there are many people who never had a role in the executive branch who were a part of the campaign. namely, for example, the children of the president of the united states. anyone who was related to prior the inauguration. there wasn't necessarily be covered by the inauguration, by the executive privilege, unless they somehow were a part of the executive portion of donald
trump's existence. that may be a stretch in and of itself. >> right. >> and even when a president's communications are involved, that doesn't end the discussion. the famous united states versus nixon case of 1974, where the supreme court unanimously said the president had to surrender the white house tapes, which were, of course, all about his communications with his advisers, they said, because it was a subpoena involving a pending criminal trial, there was a counterveiling interest there, where the public -- where the court had the right to get it. so -- but, again, the block matters here, too. here we are, we're already in march of 2019. if this goes to the courts, it probably wouldn't even be resolved until next year. and then you're loalready into e election. >> john, who would bring it to the courts? is it congress, democrats in congress who would challenge, you know, line by line, the claims of executive privilege?
>> that would be the most likely source. and that is actually turnunder case law that exists one of the weakest sources. when the senate watergate committee tried to get nixon's tapes, they didn't fair well at all. they lost at the lower court level and appellate court level and never got to the supreme court. the strongest case is somebody, on behalf of the courts proceeding. it's theoretically possible they could get to a civil case by asking somebody to testify from the white house, who would refuse, and to produce the documents and refuse. and that could get into the civil proceedings. but as jeff says, these can be very protracted. and it could take a long time to resolve. >> john, you testified in public about your conversations with the president. you know, the famous, when you talked about saying, there was a cancer on the presidency. why were you allowed to testify about that? what happened to executive privilege there? >> well, first of all, he did
waive attorney/client before i even went up, because he knew i was going to blow through it on a number of exceptions that are well known to that, crime, fraud, what have you. but the fact is, if somebody doesn't want to testify, they can invoke it. if you want to testify and provide the information, i don't know how a president could stop you, other than to go to court and try to get an injunction against you. and that's not very likely. so if mueller was called to testify and was inclined to do so, he could indeed testify and get the report out that way. >> wow, that would be interesting. john dean, thank you. jeffrey toobin and laura coates, thank you, as well. when we return, keeping 'em honest on the president's twitter tariff over the weekend. why does he keep lashing out at former senator and war hero john mccain who died back in august? you'll hear john mccain's daughter, meghan's response and what some are saying about the president east state. and we're drawing closer to the big event tonight. a presidential town hall only on
cnn with democratic candidate elizabeth warren about to make her case directly to voters in jackson, mississippi. that's starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. don't miss it, tonight. naysayer said no one would subscribe to a car the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪ when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org ♪
♪ book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. norwegian cruise line. feel free. let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. guys do whatever it takes to deal with shave irritation. so, we re-imagined the razor with the new gillette skinguard. it has a unique guard between the blades. that's designed to reduce irritation during the shave. because we believe all men deserve a razor just for them.
now with t-mobile get the samsung galaxy s10e included with unlimited data for just $40 a month. bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park... so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow conventional wisdom.
♪ ♪ take a look at president trump's twitter feed from the weekend and you'll probably walk away with the following impressions. one, he's angry. two, he's aggrieved. three, he really likes fox's judge janine. four, he really doesn't like "saturday night live," even reruns. five, he still really doesn't like war hero and former senator mccain who died in august. so let's take these in order, particularly the one about late senator mccain. for context, the president's tweets came after reports about a newly released court document that showed an associate of senator mccain shared the so-called steele dossier with the media. the court documents do not show that senator mccain shared the dossier with anyone outside the fbi, which has long been public knowledge. that's the context. in his tweet storm, trump
tweeted that kenneth starr said the developments were a stain on the senator. for good measure, the president added, he had far worse stains than this, including thumbs down on repeal and replace. that's the president attacking a dead war hero for his vote on a health care bill as he himself was valiantly fighting terminal cancer. and one swipe at senator mccain wasn't enough. the president also referred to him as last in his class annapolis, john mccain. keeping 'em honest, senator mccain was actually fifth from last in his class. but the difference from him and the president -- i should say, one of the many differences between him and the president, john mccain never asked his lawyer to threaten his college to keep his grades secret. donald trump did that, according to michael cohen. unlike the president, mccain actually had a sense of humor and was confident enough to poke fun at himself for his annapolis disciplinary record and even crashing planes. that's the kind of confidence you get when you have been through hell and survived with honor. just as a reminder, mccain
served as a naval aviator for 22 years, was shot down over vietnam in 1967, spent nearly six years being tortured as a prisoner of war. he refused early release, not leaving without his brothers in arms and was later awarded the bronze star and purple heart. president trump did not serve in the military, he was sent to boarding school where they did dress up in military uniforms, but his love for actually being in the military seemed to have ended there. he got five deferments from the vietnam draft, including one for what he claims were bone spurs. senator mccain wasn't the president's only target this weekend. he blasted out dozens and dozens of tweets and retweets, an excessive volume, even by his standards. george conway, husband of presidential adviser kellyanne conway himself took to twitter, questioning the president's mental health and fitness for office. quoting from conway, all americans should be thinking seriously now about trump's mental condition and psychological state, including and especially the media, congress, and the vice president
and cabinet. to be clear, conway there is suggesting serious people consider removing the president from office. we don't know if there was one specific tweet that prompted conway to invoke that concept or it was the gross tonnage of everything that the president was turning out. but what we do know, the president has said time and time again that twitter is his favorite forum of communication with the american people, a forum for his priorities. so one might wonder, during all of that time on twitter this weekend, while the president was threatening to weaponize the fcc, defending two fox hosts, including one that trafficked in islamophobia, what did he say about the terrorist attack from which the world is still reeling? what did he say about the 50 muslims that were gunned down in two new zealand mosques during saturday morning prayer? the answer is nothing. he did express condolences and acknowledged the killings took place in mosques. but in all the time hep apparently had on his hands this weekend, and he seemed to have a lot of time on his hands, he wrote nothing about the violence of white nationalism, nothing
about protecting america's allies from hate-filled terrorist attacks, nothing about how the fbi says hate crimes in this country rose 17% in 2017 compared to the year before, nothing about data from the adl, the antidefamation league that shows white supremacist propaganda efforts in neighborhoods and on campus increased 182% in this country last year, we don't know why the president stayed silent on all of that this weekend. perhaps it's because he said all he had to say on friday. >> do you think that white nationalism is a rising threat around the world? >> i don't really. i think it's a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. i guess if you look at what happened in new zealand, perhaps that's the case. i don't know enough about it yet. they're just learning about the person and the people involved. but it's certainly a terrible thing. terrible thing. >> and then today, from the president, quote, the fake news media is working overtime to blame me for the horrible attack in new zealand. they will have to work very hard to prove that one. so ridiculous.
still, nothing about the muslim victims in new zealand or their alleged white nationalist killer. let's see what my guests make of all this. joining me now is former republican senator, rick santorum, and former south carolina democratic legislator, bakari sellers. senator santorum, if someone's dad or uncle sent out 29 tweets or re-tweets in one day, wouldn't their family habe a little concerned or have a twitt twitt twittervention. >> there's nothing i'm going to do to defend the president in this. i've said it many times and i'll say it, he gets in the way -- look at the cnn poll that shows that 71% of the people think that the economy is on the right track and things are going well. he's doing a good job in many respects as president and then he does this! that diverts attention away from the job he's doing and some of the things that are positive and just likes to focus on things that aggrieve him.
sk and it's all personal. >> do you think there's a strategy there, or it is just personal and he's just getting it out? >> yeah, this is -- maybe this is his therapy. i don't know. i mean, i don't know how he does it. i'm not familiar with the internal workings of donald trump's schedule, but my guess is, he -- this is his time just to sort of let it all out. and he sees twitter as his outleou outlet to do that. i wish he wouldn't do it. i wish he would write them and send e-mails to -- you know, to a therapist, as opposed to sending tweets to the general public. >> bakari, i mean, you know, while 29 tweets may not be a lot for any other 72-year-old, it isn't -- this is just what the president does. i mean, is it really nany different than what he's been doing for years now? >> i think the country is being desensitized to the president of the united states' sigh cpsycho. i know george conway went on his
rampa rampage. i dare not go there. but i think many people view the president as unstable. and the reason i state that is twofold. first, you have someone who can actually crash a business with a tweet. he sets the tone and tenor for national policy and foreign policy, domestic and abroad, with a tweet. but secondly, when you see the fact that the president of the united states goes out of his way to bash a war hero, but then when asked about white supremacy, he begins to stutter. and let me not say that. he doesn't stutter. he affirms what he believes to be true, that there are good people on both sides, then that's troublesome. and many people feel, democrat and republican alike, this is not necessarily a partisan issue. people feel that his answers when it comes to this question leave a lot more than to be desired and also do not speak for the majority of americans. i think that's the problem that we get into. and we have an attack like we had in new zealand, when the president of the united states again, for the second time, cannot forcefully come out and
say and rebuke what we all know to be white supremacy, that's a problem, while you trample on the legacy of john mccain. >> go ahead. >> yeah, look, the reality is that the president sees everything through the eyes of him. and the american public has figured this out. i know folks on the left have not. they continue to call him all sorts of names and say that he's a white supremacist or a racist or whatever the case may be. and this is not about the president's viewpoint. this is about the president being -- not wanting to attack -- not wanting to say something that's going to put -- that's going to reflect badly on people that support him, because it makes it look like that, you know, that he's guilty. and so he's not going to comment on those things, because he's not going to comment on anybody that is affiliated, even perversely in the case of the new zealand shooter. he's not going to comment on
this, because he's not -- he sees that as somehow, you know, an admission. so he just leaves it alone and he goes out and attacks people who attack him. that's what he does. >> senator -- it's an interesting point, senator. but is it that he -- he sees it as blowback on him or is it just a political decision that, okay, these are people, whether he agrees with them or not, these are people who support him, white supremacists, white nationalists. and there's no political benefit for him to go after them, just as not even saying -- >> oh, i disagree with that. >> he used the word mosque once friday morning. he said nothing about muslims since then. fwr whereas if the attack had been, you know, a radical islamist, there's no doubt that he would be talking about the victims. he hasn't done anything of that. >> yeah, i don't think it's political at all. in fact, i think the overwhelming good politics of this is to actually go out and do attack these people, because there aren't -- there aren't
many of them, number one, and they're insignificant politically. and for him to do so would be a very good thing for him to do politically. he just doesn't. it's the same thing with the russia investigation. he just won't do anything that looks like he is, he's, you know, implicating himself in these -- in this tweet. >> bakari, do you agree with that? >> i actually do. i agree with rick's analysis. first, the fact that the president sees himself and sees the world through a lens that is strictly his own is actually what many people would say, what we are saying or diagnosing here on cable news as being some sort of mental health issue. but even number two, there is a part of donald trump that will not attack this white supremacist, this bigotry, this xenophobia, that is a part of our fabric, that is a part of the country, that's a part of the world that's on the rise, because he views it as an indictment on himself. and i think that senator santorum is correct in that.
because he doesn't want to offend that base. he doesn't want to offend those people. he doesn't want to offend the notion. and let me be clear. i think the president of the united states is racist. however, for the purposes of taking this discourse to a higher level, senator santorum may not. but i do believe that we all agree that the president uses racism as political currency. and that means that he allows these people to continue to breed philosophically and vote for him. >> senator santorum, i appreciate your time. after friday's attack in new zealand, waj alikd called the president impotent. the fact that the president tweeted about everything except for what happened in new zealand, what message do you think that sends? and whdo you agree with what's being discussed, it's not necessarily a political stance,
it's just, he sees no benefit in it in doing so? >> it's true to form, it's the feature, not the bug with donald trump, because he doesn't want to offend part of his base. and a part of his base, i'm sorry to say, are racist, because the president is racist have racial trip-ups, he is racist. the kkk chanted "the jews will not replace us." what did donald trump say? very fine people, both sides are to blame. a few weeks later, in spain, when muslims did the exact same act of terrorism, they hijacked a car and plowed it through a car, he was tough. he's always tough when it comes to muslims and promoted that fake conspiracy theory that if you dip bullets into pig's blood, you can use it to kill muslims. that's what he said, that general persian said, he didn't. and here i am as a muslim telling everyone, you don't need pig's blood to kill muslims. regular bullets work just fine. so you have to ask yourself, why does a new zealand shooter, a domestic terrorist, anderson, who killed 50 people in his
manifesto say that donald trump represents to him a renewed symbol of white identity with whom he shares a common purpose? what common purpose, anderson, can a white supremacist domestic terrorist share with donald trump? and the -- if i may, the manifesto was named replacement, the great replacement. that is the number one conspiracy theory of white supremacists. that conspiracy theory says that the jews are the head of this cabal, using all of their power and influence, to weaken the white race by bringing in immigrants, rapists, criminals, right, muslims, to subordinate the white man. let's take it to october 2018, the delorean, just a few months back. donald trump, midterm elections, doubled down and tripled down on one talking point. invasion, caravan, rapists, criminals, mexicans, muslims. that same time, who used the same exact talking point of invasion? robert bowers, who walked into a tree of life synagogue and killed 11 people, saying that i
want to punish those who are bringing in the invaders. and who used the word "invasion" several times in his manifesto? the new zealand shooter. and on friday, president trump had an opportunity to show that he was not pathetic, spineless, impotent, weak in the face of domestic terrorists, white supremacists, and what word did he use, anderson? >> invaders. >> invasion. any reason why he's seen as the renewed symbol of white identity and a man who shares common purpose with not only the new zealand shooter, but also the daily stormer, the leading white supremacist website? a l alt-right, david duke of the kk. it's all there. >> after the attacks, you wrote, the threat we're facing isn't just individual terrorists, it's the global ideology of white nationalism and white supremacy. we have to take it seriously and call out academics and media personalities who give it a platform. i mean, i think back even to -- i think it was one of the last campaign commercials, if not the last campaign commercial for the trump campaign, sort of with pictures of, you know, sort of the idea that george soros was
behind, you know, and janet yellen, pictures of her. i want just all seemed to be that sort of playing up to the trope which you discussed, that jews are behind this invasion. >> it's worse. mick mulvaney said recently that donald trump is not a white supremacist. okay. but he mainstreams white supremacist conspiracy theorys. exactly what you said. that george soros conspiracy theory was mainstreamed and tweeted out by president trump, and then carried out by the republican party. that theory says that george soros, a hungarian jewish american billionaire, funded the caravan of rapists, muslims, mexicans to invade america. that conspiracy theory literally comes from the ideological swamp of white supremacists worldwide. it was used in poland, it's used in hungary, it was used in europe, and it was used by president trump. so the question is, why is the president mainstreaming white supremacist conspiracy theories? why does he call them very fine people when it's muslims, why does he attack them and act tough and say, i'm going to do
extreme vetting on the muslim ban, but he can't even muster the "t" word, terrorism, for white nationalists? >> wajahad ali, appreciate your time. i want to turn back to the storm over the latest attacks over the late senator mccain. mccain's daughter says that the president is obsessed with great men, like her father, "great men" is her term, and she's firing back anew. we'll hear from her fwhex. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only with expedia.
shared the so-called steele dossier with members of the media. documents do not allege that the senator shared the dossier with anyone outside the fbi, which has long been public knowledge. so with that in mind, know what we're about to show you from the president is not accurate. the president wrote this on twitter. quote, it was indeed just proven in court papers, last in his class annapolis, john mccain, that sent the fake dossier to the fbi and media, hoping to have it printed before the election. like we said, it wasn't john mccain giving it to the media. the new documents didn't say senator mccain shared it. here's how his daughter, meghan mccain responded to all of this on "the view." >> he spends his weekend obsessing over great men, because he knows it and i know it and all of you know it, he will never be a great man. so my father was his kryptonite in life and is his kryptonite in death. and i just thought, your life is spent on your weekends, not with your family. not with your friends, but obsessing, obsessing over great men you could never live up to.
that tells you everything you need to know about his pathetic life right now. >> i want to bring in mark mckinnon, a former senior adviser to john mccain, also former rnc staff mike shields, and republican strategist, rick wilson, author of, "everything trump touches dies." mark, as someone who worked with, respected, and probably loved jm, i want to know what went through your mind when you read those comments from the president? >> well, three things, anderson. i break it down this way. you have a man insulting a guy -- a man who claimed bone spurs to get out of vietnam, insulting a guy who was captured and tortured. you have a man who had his lawyer threaten schools not to disclose his academic scores, insulting a man who freely admitted he wasn't the smartest in his class and had the confidence to joke about it. you have a man who invited a hostile nation to hack his political opponent, insulting a man who gave sensitive information to our own is intelligence service, which is what i hope anyone would do. and that's why i wear this bracelet that says, what would
john mccain do, and that's why i'm sending them to all 100 senators. >> mike, is this how you wish the president was spending his time? >> look, you and i have talked before is, how is it that the president gets fact checked so much and yet there's a huge group of americans, his base in particular, who think he's honest. and this is why. we've all seen people that go to a funeral or have someone who's passed away and then they're glowingly talking about them. president trump is being honest and he's certainly not changing who he is. he criticized john mccain before, they were political enemies, he continues to criticize him. i think he's pretty upset that this information got out, that he thinks john mccain had something to do with it. and it doesn't surprise me one bit that he's going to continue to say what he thinks is right and there's a group of people that see sincerity in him that he's not being a politician saying, oh, now that he's passed away, i'm going to say nice things about him. >> yeah, but being sincere -- if you're a jerk one week and you're still a jerk the next week, is that really a badge of honor? >> look, this is what some people might call a jerk,
another person is going to call strength and say he's sticking to his guns and not backing down from someone who a lot of republicans think of as a democrat who fought the president. and may have tried to undermine his entire candidacy. and some of the things that were in that dossier are so personally reprehensible that i think that he's pretty mad about it and he's not -- he's sharing his anger in a way that a lot of people say, hey, he's being honest. >> rick, just the fact that the man who not only refused to release his own school records but actually had the school hide them, criticizing mccain who joked repeatedly about -- not only about his, like, discipl e disciplinary record at annapolis, but also about the fact that he had crashed planes, i think he first crashed a plane in plaid imeridian, mississippi is where my dad's from. it's ironic, if it was not deeply offensive to those who care for senator mccain. >> an actual man can own his mistakes and laugh at himself and have some self-referential
moments where he doesn't have of the this constant fake swaggering act like donald trump. donald trump's, you know, wifoe macho act is just that, it's a mile wide and an inch deep. a physical and moral coward, someone who ran from service from his country, the fact that he wants to hide his grades is self-evident, because the guy obviously has the iq as a room-temperature cup of yogurt and not a man who has ever shown any kind of accountability, responsibility, courage, integrity of any kind, in any sphere of his behavior. so john mccain is is a rebuke to donald trump from beyond the grave. and he hates it. he doesn't hate it because of the dossier. he hates it because donald trump knows that john mccain was more of a man than he could ever possibly hope to be. >> mike, do you think -- >> anderson -- >> sorry, go ahead. >> i find it really interesting that my colleagues here are offended by what the president said, so their reaction to that is to personally attack donald trump with invective and, you
know, sort of hateful words about the president. and that's their response to defending john mccain when the president attacks him. >> yes, but mine have the advantage of being true. >> there's some irony there. i just read an article about how john mccain once showed up to one of his colleague's hearings, wasn't really supposed to be there, just told them all to "f" off and stormed out of the room. the guy had a pretty fiery temper himself. >> right. >> these were political enemies, they went after each other. i would say that whatever donald trump is tweeting now, hep doesn't feel as nearly as bad as trying to undermine his entire candidacy with a dossier that he thinks is being handed over to someone. i think he thinks that's pretty worse. >> mark, do you think there's a strategy for donald trump doing this? this has been endlessly debated and i hesitate to even ask this question, because i feel like it's been asked so many times. but is there a strategy to this? senator santorum or jim acosta earlier was saying, this is, according to people he's talked to, just him throwing things out to try to divert attention or release stress. do you believe that there's
actually a thought behind this? or is it just a realtime rorschach test of what's going on in the president's head? >> i think it's just signs of being under the pressure cooker and mike wible just say that -- listen, i understand that the president may honestly dislike john mccain, but he should be honest about what he says about john mccain. in each of those instances, in those tweets, they were patently untrue things that he was saying. he handed that dossier over to our own intelligence services after the election and not before it. >> make, what about that? >> look, i -- i'm not -- i'm not quibbling on whether -- you know, what place that he finished in at annapolis and what the president said. what i'm saying is that he's a political enemy and he's not -- i think that there are people that view the president as a level of sin terricerity -- >> but it's not sneincere if it not true. >> i'm sorry? >> it's not sincere if it's not true. >> but when he gets fact checked, it's, why doesn't people think that he's still
honest? >> no one thinks the president is honest. >> they're so sick of politicians that say the right thing and stay pc. here's a guy who says, i don't care, i'm going to say whatever i want to say and you're going to know. i don't think hep stands to gain a lot out of this. there are a group of voters that are tracted to someone who is being that, in their mind, honest with them. >> so he's lying, but people like the fact -- some supporters like the fact that he continues to lie -- >> they think that every politician lies and that politicians are insincere and someone -- oh, he was my enemy before, but now i'm going to be nice to him. and they like the fact that someone says, oh, you know what, i still don't like the guy. >> but the vast majority of americans think he's not truthful, though. the vast majority of americans think he's not truthful. even the base, a plurality, thinks he's not truthful. >> it's interesting, because he's a person who's when he's with you in the room, he'll say
one thing, and when you leave the room and someone else comes in the room, he'll say something different. the criticism that whoever's the last person who's in the room is what he's thinking. but to people's faces, he doesn't fire people to their face, he doesn't have conflict to their face. that would be real. >> it comes back again, he is a weak man. he is a weak man with a loud megaphone. and so he won't fire people to their face, he'll whisper to john kelly, fire my kids, but he would never confront them and say, hey, you're doing a bad job, you have to go. he never fires anyone directly. he always does it with this sort of, you know, behind the veil of twitter or behind the veil, after they're already out the door. or he just irritates them and bugs them and nudges them until they're gone. he doesn't have the ability to really confront people directly to their face. i mean, he caves like crazy when he's in a room negotiating with people, all the time. and that is a consistent pattern of behavior that his anger about everybody else is matched by his
cowardess about confronting them. >> we've got to leave it there. rick wilson, mark mckinnon, good discussion, appreciate it. coming up, more on our breaking news about the white house, expect to see any mueller findings before congress receives their. i'll talk with preet bharara. and the cnn presidential town hall, democratic candidate elizabeth warren just moments away. a look at the location in jackson, mississippi. stay with us. ♪ oh oh oh oh oh ♪ it's taking over ♪ there's no escape ♪ you better get moving ♪ ready or not ♪ it's about to go down here it comes now ♪ ♪ get ready ♪ oh oh oh oh ♪ oh oh oh oh ♪ get ready ♪ moving ♪ ready or not ♪ get ready ♪ oh oh oh oh oh ♪ hey metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i.
i treat my mbc with everyday verzenio, the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. verzenio is the only cdk4 & 6 inhibitor approved with hormonal therapy that can be taken every day for post menopausal women with hr+, her2 negative mbc. verzenio plus an ai helped women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms include tiredness, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are pregnant, nursing, or plan to be pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss.
i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. turn up your swagger game with one a day gummies. one serving... ...once a day... ...with nutrients that support 6 vital functions... ...and one healthy you. that's the power of one a day. so let's promote our spring ftravel deals, on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.
cnn's town hall with senator elizabeth warren starts in just over ten minutes, but back to our breaking news. sourcing telling cnn that white house attorneys expect to have an opportunity to review whatever version of robert mueller's findings that the attorney decides to submit to congress, before lawmakers get to see it and the public. the attorneys want an opportunity to claim executive privilege over some of the details. joining me now is preet bharara, former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, author of the new book, "doing justice: a prosecutor's thoughts on crime, punishment, and the rule of law," just out. from a legal standpoint, the white house is allowed to do this, aren't they? >> well, it depends on what they're doing, exactly. presumably what happened was, lawyers for the president decided that in exchange for being good about voluntarily giving up information to the special counsel, they reserve their right to later assert executive privilege, which is maybe the, you know, the tactic they're going to use now. the problem is, not everything is subject to executive
privilege. if the president had a communication in which he told someone to do something wrong or offensive or wasn't an offense, that's not covered by executive privilege and should become known. there's also something unseemly about this idea that the very person who might be the subject to derogatory information >> so if the white house exerts executive privilege over a whole bunch of different things can that be challenged by democrats and congress? >> presumably. the tactic is to stall. you have to go through communication after communication before a court can decide what is outside of the executive privilege? what is outside of what is appropriate to keep away from congress and that can take a long time. >> that could go all the way to the supreme court theoretically? >> it could. but during that period of time, things will end up being handled more from a political standpoint than legal standpoint.
420-0 in the house saying the results of the mueller report should be public. >> if the democrats have issues with some of the things that are cited while it's going through legal channels, could the democrats call bob mueller to testify and would he be able to talk about the things which the white house has claimed executive privilege on? >> i guess. but if the white house knows what it's doing it would not only exert executive privilege over the report but they would also say preemptively, we see the court order preventing bob mueller from talking about the things that we still intend to designate as covered by executive privilege. doing justice, a prosecutors thoughts on crime, punishment,
and rule of law. you write in it some advice you were given when you started at the southern district of new york and it's advice that you passed along. do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons. do you think the cohen investigation is being done in the right way for the right reasons? >> from what i can tell. they'll bring a case if it makes sense to bring a case and if they don't think it's right to bring a case -- >> republicans have asked would this case have been brought against michael cohen if donald trump was not the president? >> there was a referral made from bob mueller that came across potential evidence of misconduct on the part of michael cohen and gave that information to someone -- look, the college admission scandal, it's interesting to look at that as a parallel. that was a case in which a u.s. attorney's office was
investigating a financial executives for security's fraud and pinched the guy and the guy decided i have some other information to give you and gave them this college bribery scandal so it turned out that the first motivation for looking at someone ended up being something different. that happens all the time. it doesn't mean it's inappropriate. >> you say the world called out for people that care enough to be exacting even when no one is looking and diligent enough and embracing and owning the responsibility because people are counting on them. would you describe robert mueller that way? >> i would. we're in this time of people making assertions of fake news and truth is truth. but for purposes of the book and the country, sometimes it makes sense to take a step back and look at first principles and figure out what it means to do justice and be fair minded.
how do you get just results? and we don't do that enough these days. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> the presidential town hall we liz beth warren is minutes away. she will be answering questions from those in jackson, mississippi tonight. as for the newest entry, beto o'rourke raised in the first 24 hours of his launch according to his campaign. that would be the largest first day haul of any 2020 democratic hopeful to date. >> what does that say to you? >> it's eye popping. he beat out even bernie sanders that had run last time and it means he has some longevity here.
he has the money. we'll see if he has a message. all the candidates have to be wary. he raised $68 million during his senate bid and now people are asking can he raise that money again? and it seems like he can. >> they sent out a tweet over the weekend making fun of his dui arrest. is their internal polling showing them something that we don't know? does it show that they are concerned about him at this point? or are they just throwing darts at whoever they can? >> well, i mean, look, it's donald trump so to a certain extent he just likes to hurl insults at people but if they're smart they're taking him seriously. he has incredible enthusiasm. unprecedented enthusiasm in his race in texas and went a lot further than a lot of people thought he could. a democrat could in texas and,
you know, came very close to beating ted cruz. he somebody that should be taken seriously. i'm not sure about how tweeting about the dui helps their cause. if anything it makes him seem more sympathetic. it was a nasty attack and wasn't just against him. it was sort of an attack on irish people. it was done on st. patrick's day. somehow linking drinking and being irish and your standard garden variety bigotry i guess and in some weird way it probably helped beto. >> what do you make of beto o'rourke? the fact that he can raise so much money. does he actually have policy positions firmed out? >> anyone that raises $6.1 million has to be taken
seriously but i think the o'rourke campaign is taking a different tact. they're taking charisma over substance or anything else. i would bet it wouldn't but i also believed hillary clinton would be president of the united states. the contrast from elizabeth warren versus beto o'rourke, it's going to blow your mind. the reason is they have been driving the policy debates in the democratic party and then when you see elizabeth warren tonight, when you see her in jackson mississippi, in front of a progressive mayor and rising star as well, you're going to look at that and look at o'rourke and have two vastly different candidates. it's up to the democratic party, what do we want? do we want substance or charisma or some combination of both.
>> talking about vice president biden saying he has the most progressive record of anybody running. is that intentional? unintentional? slip of the tongue? you could argue it was just kind of a little too cute? intentional kind of slip of the tongue to get extra drum roll before announcing. >> biden is known for the slip of the tongue. i tend to think he didn't mean to say it but nobody was surprised when he said it and nobody will be surprised when he announces he's going to run. i presume he is going to run. i presume he's also going to announce after the first fund-raising quarter because you look at the money that beto o'rourke has raised and the money that bernie sanders has raised and that could be embarrassing for him but he seems like a candidate this time arou around. >> they're discussing selecting
a running mate early in hopes of taking command of the democratic race. it's something that advisers would discuss but given that he hasn't announced yet it's kind of incredible. >> it would be smart if somehow he could, for example, if it was a stacy abrams or kamala harris that would agree to be a vice presidential candidate, that would help biden a lot because there's so many people in the democratic pa ert th democratic party that don't just want to have a white man as the ticket. so it's a good idea. it's a very intriguing idea. the approval rating has ticked up 42%. could that change? we only have a couple of seconds. so quickly. >> donald trump has a solid 35% of the american electorate. democrats we can't pray for
robert mueller to come out with an amazing report. we're going to have to just beat him. >> the cnn presidential town hall we lith he business -- elizabeth warren hosted by jake tapper starts now. good evening. welcome to cnn democratic presidential town hall with senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts. i'm jake tapper. we're live at jackson state university. a historically black university founded in 1877 for the first major event in the state of mississippi. we're here