Doh spicer. All right, so, the white house used to claim that the president s tweets are not just idle opinionating, theyre official statements with the power of the white house behind him. How many times have people working for the president said the president s tweet speaks for itself or words to that effect . Except for todays tweet. That apparently doesnt speak for itself. That needs a spokesperson and a tv lawyer speaking for it, sweeping up after it, quietly trying to wipe it off the bottom of their shoes. When the president of the United States says that one of his subordinates should do something and do it now, how is that just one guys opinion . It all smacks of another effort that was made recently to suggest that the president didnt really say what everyone heard him say. And a key sentence in my remarks, i said the word would instead of wouldnt. The sentence should have been, i dont see any reason why i wouldnt, or why it wouldnt be russia. Sort of a double negative. That actually happened. Doesnt it seem like a decade ago . Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. And so thats where theyve been pushing. And so, you now have at least some movement from the mueller team. But keep in mind, anderson, theyre still insisting that they want a sitdown with the president , and some of those questions will cover this very important question of Obstruction Of Justice. Do we know at this point where things stand about any questions regarding collusion . Well, the collusion question, believe it or not, the trump team has been open to having the president answer those questions, you know, if there is a sitdown interview. Now, keep in mind, anderson, i think Rudy Giuliani said in his Statement Today that the lawyers do not want trump to do any interview at all, but obviously, they have a client who is insisting that he does want to do an interview. He wants to sit down with Robert Mueller facetoface because he believes if he doesnt, hes going to get crucified politically. In terms of the tweets of the president this morning, im wondering if youre learning about what actually led up to them. Least not just yet. All right, evan perez, thank you so much. With us now, richard blumenthal, democrat of connecticut, serves on the Senate Judiciary committee. Thank you so much for being with us. The idea first of all this new reporting that the mueller team is willing to reduce the number of questions. Does that make sense to you . Well, it makes sense to a point. As a prosecutor, both federal and state Attorney General, i can see some limits, but this investigation cannot close without all of the relevant questions about both the conspiracy to aid the russians in attacking our democracy and also the Obstruction Of Justice that is continuing in realtime right before our eyes. You just laid out the word games that the white house is trying to play in walking back the president s very blatant and brazen threats to shut down this investigation, which itself is an act possibly of Obstruction Of Justice. It is remarkable the extent to which the president and the
white house, i mean, are continually walking back things that the president has said. He says them very clearly. You know, hes whether hes thought about it or not, but i mean, many this case, he wrote it out. It wasnt just a slip of the tongue. And now theyre saying, oh, kind of ignore what hes actually said, when in the past theyve said, well, no, thats what the president actually believes. Absolutely right. And in fact, going back in history, the president of the United States actually has fired people on twitter. Yeah. So, to say should stop when its the commander in chief, has real instructional meaning. Do you believe this is Obstruction Of Justice, this tweet . Its certainly very powerful and credible evidence of malign and corrupt intent, which is an element of Obstruction Of Justice. And often the most difficult to prove. And oven the most difficult to prove. It is a threat, plain and simple, brazen and blatant. Its purpose and effect is to threaten and intimidate the
mil milgram. Professor dershowitz, this reporting that muellers team is willing to reduce the number of questions that ask about potential obstruction, do you this thats going to be enough to get the president to sit down . Well, its a very smart move by mueller because its not about quantity, its about quality and substance. If they can just get the president to testify about what his motive was in firing comey or about why he spoke to comey about being going soft on flynn, those are potential perjury traps. So, mueller is very smart to reduce the number, if the result is that he can get trump to sit down and talk to him. The lawyers are not happy about this. The lawyers do not want the president to answer any questions, because that would subject the president to a possible 1001 prosecution, that is lying to a prosecutor. And so i and remember, too, the lawyers are saying to him, look, you dont have to answer questions about your intent. We have a very good Privilege Argument that will probably prevail in front of a court. If you had the right and the
power to fire comey, then you cannot be questioned about why you did it any more than senator or a congressman or a judge can be questioned about why they rendered a decision or a vote. So, i think, in the end, its going to be very unlikely that the lawyers will lose this battle and the president will actually sit down and expose himself to a possible perjury trap. Professor, you use the term perjury trap. Its only a perjury trap if someone wants to perjure themselves. Isnt it . I mean no, thats not true. Well, no one is being forced to lie. Its a perjury trap correct me. Well, i will correct you. If you have the president saying something that he believes is truthful, and then you have another witness, cohen or manafort or one of the others contradicting him without regard to who is telling the truth, you could get a perjury prosecution. And so, ive often advised clients who have insisted to me that they will only Tell The Truth. I say to them, but it is
possible that any other witness will Tell The Truth different than yours . And if the answer to that is yes, in 53 years, ive never had a client sit down with a prosecutor. Innocent, guilty or in between. So, you are absolutely right that for the most part, if you are completely innocent, the risks are lower, but there are risks, even if you are innocent. If you have people who are being squeezed. Remember that judge ellis said about manafort that theyre not really interested in him, theyre trying to squeeze him, and he used the term, a term that i have used for years, saying sometimes you can squeeze a witness not only into singing, but composing. And if you can get a witness to compose, then it really does become a perjury trap. But the biggest perjury trap is having a witness who is prone to lying. No question about it. And also i think the way the professor is describing perjury, it makes it seem like if theres two completely different versions of events, someone can be charged with perjury. In my experience as a state and federal prosecutor, thats not the case. To prove perjury is a very high standard, and you actually have to be able to prove to a jury that one version of events is
false. And so, you know, again, i tend to think the same way most people do that, you know, if you have nothing to hide and youre going to Tell The Truth, you should go in and talk to the investigators. Thats why youre not a Defense Lawyer. Thats why youre not a Defense Lawyer. If you were a Defense Lawyer you would understand completely. Its enormously risky to go in and Tell The Truth if somebody is telling a different truth, and if prosecutors have an interest in promoting the truth that the other person is saying. Its just too risky. If i could switch a little, i think its worth debating this question of perjury, but ill tell you my view. My view is that the president doesnt want to go in. And so, we talk a lot about whether or not the lawyers want him to go in or dont want him to go in, and i think that mueller very much wants him in, and so, what were seeing a little bit is this dance. And my view is, look, people tell the president not to tweet, he tweets all the time. If you were his lawyer, i assume you would have not told him to send that tweet this morning. And hes unstoppable. So, my view is, if he really wants to go in, hes going to go in. And so, i think well know soon enough whether its true that he wants to tell his side of the story. Professor, the tweet from the president this morning, saying the Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions should stop the investigation, the white house said it was an opinion, not an order. I wonder how you read it. Previously the white house has said these are statements by the president. They hold the imprint of that. Well, i dont know what the tweet was untended to do, because hes telling sessions to stop the investigation. Sessions doesnt have the power to stop the investigation. Sessions is officially and formally recused. He is not permitted to take any action to stop the investigation. If he really wanted to stop the investigation, he would direct Rod Rosenstein to stop the investigation, or he would fire mueller, which he has the power to do legally, but not politically. Politically, he does not have the power to fire mueller. It would be enormously costly to him. Nor does he have the power politically to fire rosenstein. So, hes just, you know,
punchipunch i puffing off about sessions when sessions has no authority to stop the investigation at all. Anne, is that how you see it . That its just kind of puffing off . To me its pretty stunning that were in the middle of this National Conversation that started last week about the president s tweets and whether or not he is obstructing justice in tweeting about wanting to stop or influencing an investigation, and then he literally sends a tweet this morning talking about wanting to stop the investigation. And so, whether or not we could actualize and make it happen, you know, strikes me as almost not the point here. The point is but finish your thought, anne. Hold on. I want anne to finish her thought. I thought you were done. The conversation about tweets to me is tweets can absolutely used against someone in a court of law. Peoples words are used against them all the time. And it is one of those things where, to me, the tweets will be looked at all together, and there are multiple tweet that i think could pose legal jeopardy to the president. So obviously, you know, its stunning to me that he would be tweeting about this today. Professor . I just want every american to think about what it would mean if we started prosecuting any american, the president or anybody else, for expressing strong views about the unjustness of a prosecution. Any defendant feels that the prosecution or the investigation against him is unjust. Every one of my client has railed against prosecutors. But your clunt clients dont the power to stop that. Of course. Of course thats right. But he doesnt have the power to stop it through sessions and he really doesnt have the political power to stop it. I want to talk about the Civil Liberties implications of basing a prosecution on cobbling together public tweets. Obstruction of justice takes place generally but you know theyre not basing the prosecution on tweets. You certainly know theyve been amassing evidence now for quite some time. But its almost all public. Its almost all public things he did, acts that he was entitled to do under article 2. We dont know that. You dont know what they its extraordinary weak obstruction case. You have no idea what the
evidence they gathered is. Well, we know what the public evidence is. Right, well, that doesnt mean anything, though. We know the tip of an iceberg. If there is look, if he did what nixon did and paid hush money or told his people to lie or destroyed evidence, of course thats Obstruction Of Justice. But engaging in public outrage at a prosecution that he honestly feels is unjust has to be protected by the first amendment, whether youre the president or anyone else. All right, professor dershowitz, appreciate it. Anne milgram as well. Thank you. Just ahead tonight, more on how the Paul Manafort trial may factor into all of this. What went on today as the case tonights to speed through court. Also, why the government may never end up calling their star witness. Also next, the rage at trump rallies and the president s encouraging of it, directed at reporters. Keeping them honest, when we return. My moms pain from
i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. And if that pain could mean something worse. Joint pain could mean joint damage. Enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. Serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, Nervous System and Blood Disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. Tell your doctor if youve been someplace where fungal infections are common. Or if youre prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for Heart Failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. Dont start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. Since enbrel, my moms back to being my mom. Visit enbrel. Com. And use the joint Damage Simulator to see how joint damage could progress. Ask about enbrel. Enbrel. Fda approved for over 18 years. If todays attempt at downplaying the president s russia tweets could be comical at times, this next issue is not. Its downright disturbing. Its something the president encouraged people to do, as he often does, something hes repeatedly encouraged people to do. Im going to show you the video in a moment. What youre going to see are otherwise respectable people, fellow citizens, fellow americans, people youd say hello to on the street, shouting profanities, making obscene gestures, emptying their rage on members of the press covering last nights trump rally in tampa. Take a look. So, it gets worse, as youll see in a moment. One of the things thats alarming about this, besides the very real potential that this kind of anger can lead to violence, is that instead of taking steps to tamp down the anger or curtail the protesters or just admonish them, the president of the United States has encouraged them, even retweeted some of the video out to his millions of followers. And if you think anyone in the
white house has the courage or conviction to criticize what the president is encouraging, you would be mistaken. Here is Sarah Sanders generically condemning violence, something that, of course, did not happen last night, thankfully, but saying nothing about what actually did happen. The president condemns and denounces any group that would Insight Violence against another individual, and certainly Doesnt Support Groups that would promote that type of behavior. So, she was trying to steer the conversation towards farright conspirery groups like qanon, which well talk more about. And even then, as youll see, she lumped them together with the press, suggesting there was some kind of equivalence between the two. In fact, there was another reporter in the briefing pointed out, thats not the issue. At issue at least for now. Its not the issue. The issue at hand is the kind of open display of rage last night that the president is encouraging in rallies and on twitter. Now here is some of the video that Cnns Jim Acosta put up on instagram. I want to play through it a couple of times. First what cameras saw and then
with portions highlighted so you get a better idea of what jim and other reporters were surrounded last night in tampa while simply doing their constitutionally protected jobs. [ bleep ]. Stop lying Tell The Truth. Tell the truth. So, thats what it sounded like. I just want to play it again with certain things highlighted, because, you know, its easy to lose it in the crowd. It starts with a man shouting f the media and everyone you see
here, they could be your neighbor, they could teach your kids science, they could be in your carpool, they could be saying prayers next to you in church. But at thees rallies that potential churchgoer might be raising a middle finger, shouting, as on man says, stop lying, stop lying into the camera. Now there is another lady who first raises one middle finger. This lady right here is very charming. Then she raises both fingers shouting you suck, you suck. Youre only seeing less than a minute of it. But this kind of thing went on a whole lot longer. And again, the president saw fit to encourage it on twitter, and again, Sarah Sanders did not see fit to just condemn it simply and without reservation. The president , as i just said, does not support violence against anyone or anything. And weve been very clear every single time weve been asked about that. When it comes to the media, the president does think that the media holds a responsibility. We fully support a free press, but there also comes a high
level of responsibility with that. The media routinely reports on classified information and Government Secrets that put lives in danger and risk valuable National Security tools. This has happened both in our administration and in past administrations. One of the worst cases was the reporting on the u. S. Ability to listen to Osama Bin Ladens Satellite Phone in the late 90s. Because of that reporting, he stopped using that phone and the country lost valuable intelligence. So, as for the last part of what she just said there, the bit about reporting accurately and fairly, yes, certainly people in the media get things wrong. Ive gotten things wrong, not often, but we do. When that happens, we correct it. Sometimes within seconds or minutes, as fast as we can. The same cannot be said of Sarah Sanders or the president or others in the white house. Keeping them honest, though the example Sarah Sanders mentioned there about Osama Bin Laden and the phone, thats actually not true. The Washington Post fakecheckers ran it all down 13 years ago. By the time the story Sarah Sanders was apparently referring to ran in september of 1998, bin laden had apparently already stopped using his satellite
phone. In fact, cnns peter bergen, who has reported extensively on this as early as 1997 met with bin laden. Bin ladens men were already concerned about electronic surveillance by 1997. Quoting the post headline now, filed the bin laden phone leak under your been myths. Now well see if Sarah Sanders corrects herself in a few minutes or a few hours or in a few days or whenever she happens to have a next press conference. I doubt it. Well see if she holds herself to the same standard that we hold ourselves to. Joining us is cnn political analyst david gergen. I mean you know, i always try to use the example, if the president was a democrat and you had, you know, a democratic president encouraging people at rallies to scream at reporters yes. Reporters would be outraged about it. I mean, if they were screaming at fox news, you know, get off the air and when anybody does that, thats abhorrent. Yeah, i agree. There are some reporters of other networks who are coming to the defense of cnn on this and
jim acosta in particular. You know, the publisher of the New York Times went to see the president recently, and he made the point to him which i think is exactly right. The whole charges about fake news is very, very disturbing, but the serious issue is when the president starts calling the press Enemies Of The People. Right. Thats an old phrase. It comes out of the stalinist background, and it really makes them sort of traitors to the country. And there were some hints of reporters being called traitors last night. If you put that together, the Enemies Of The People together along with a rally, which has a mob quality to it, and then along with the culture of gun violence thats a very combustible mix. Also Sarah Sanders then talking about Enemies Of The People, traitors, she is talking about revealing classified information. I mean, there are so many examples of reporters holding back on reporting things at the request of Intelligence Agencies so that sources and methods are protected or lives are not endangered. Ive been involved in many occasions when the head of the cia or someone, the secretary of defense or the president himself, might call a publisher and say, would you please wi withhold this. Right. Because heres whats at stake. When we had our hostages in iran, you know, for those 400 plus days, no leaks. They were protected the whole time by press who knew they were in there, but didnt want to endanger their lives. So, we have a president , when he comes in, takes an oath to protect the Constitutional Rights of all americans. And what this president and this white house seem to not to accept is that thats their responsibility at these rallies, to ensure that a free press can exercise daytoday work. Its interesting because the president has spoken about the importance of the Second Amendment. Right. Many times. You expect the president , and again, i know donald trump is a rule breaker, and thats why he got elected, and people wanted to see things shaken up. But you do expect the president to defend the constitution of the United States. Exactly. And to explain the intricacies of the constitution. Right. And the sometimes uncomfortable difficulties that the constitution enforces on the country. And thats not something this president has done or really seems willing to do in any way. Im afraid its as if hes read parts of the constitution like the Second Amendment but is not terribly familiar with other parts of it like the first amendment. But i will tell you this, anderson, what we saw last night is what we saw frequently in sarah palin rallies way back when in the early part of it. And john mccain, who was her running mate and president ial nominee, went out, went to those rallies and said stop it. Lets end this. That is the president s responsibility. And unless he stops this soon, i will tell you, if there is violence against any reporter thats tied to this, the blood is going to be on his hands. I mean, it seems you know, one doesnt want to predict
anything, but the idea of violence occurring, somebody whose disturbed being motivated by this rightly or wrongly in their certainly in their mind, they would be right. But even if its not what the president said right. Just this kind of a mob atmosphere, violence, it doesnt take much. It doesnt take much. And weve got this new element of the qanon. Were reporting on that tonight. A lot of people not a lot, a number of people there last night with shirts with a q on it. A lot of people not a lot, but a number of people there last night with shirts saying with the q on it. But there are a lot of conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are known to act on them. And sometimes use violence as in the pizzeria situation. David gergen, appreciate it. Thank you. Day two of the Paul Manafort trial. Prosecutors are urging the judge speaking through their case. There is a lot of tonight what the government says was Paul Manaforts lavish lifestyle, including details of the 15,000 ostrich jacket. The latest from the court just ahead. My car smells good. Its these new freshfx car Air Fresheners from armor all. Each scent can create a different mood in my car. Like tranquil skies. Armor all, its easy to smell good. Now im gonna tell my momma that im a traveller im Gonna Follow The Sun now im gonna tell my momma that im a traveller im Gonna Follow The Sun transitions™ light under control™ transitions™ so what do you guys want . Pistachio. Chocolate chip. Rocky road. I see Whats Going On here. Everybodys got different taste. Well, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans so everybody gets the plan they want, without paying for things they dont. Jetsetting moms can videochat from europe. Movieobsessed teens can stream obscure cinema. Its like everyone gets their own flavor of unlimited. chuckles its a metaphor. Simile, not a metaphor. Hm. Well played. vo one family. Different unlimited plans. Starting at 40 per line. Switch now and get 300 off our best phones all on the network you deserve. Chicken thats right, chicken . candace new Chicken Creations from starkist. Buffalo Style Chicken in a pouch bold choice, charlie just tear, eat. Mmmmm. And go try all of my Chicken Creations chicken
only remfresh usesodys ionpowered melatonin to deliver up to 7 hours of sleep support. Number one sleep doctor recommended remfreshyour nightly sleep companion. Day two of the Paul Manafort trial focused on what prosecutors said was his lavish lifestyle paid for by wire transfers from offshore accounts. Government lawyers also told the judge they might not call his longtime deputy rick gates as a witness. In the courtroom for us today, cnns jessica schneider, who joins us now. So did we learn today more about how manafort paid for all these expensive purchases . Yeah, we did, anderson. Prosecutors, theyre going to Great Lengths to showcase Paul Manaforts lavish lifestyle. To do that, they called six vendors to the stand. These were employees at mercedesbenz, also high end retailers in manhattan for luxury Mens Clothing. And all of these vendors, they said the exact same thing. They said that Paul Manafort paid them through wire transfers, through these offshore accounts. And these were really some heavy price tags here. Paul manafort paid contractors about 1. 13 million for home improvements. He also paid close to 500,000 to a Mens Clothing store boutique, as well as 123,000 at that car dealership, mercedesbenz. So really, what prosecutors are trying to do here, theyre trying to lay out how exactly manafort got all of this money from his ukrainian lobbying, and also how he tried the hide these payments in these offshore accounts, as well as these shell accounts. Anderson . I was very confused yesterday about the notion of an ostrich coat, which i thought meant ostrich feathers. Sadly, it apparently doesnt. There were pictures introduced into evidence, right . So, there were pictures. Prosecutors have plenty of these pictures, not only of the ostrich coat, but these luxury watches, all the luxury clothing
that Paul Manafort had. And whats interesting about this is, they have entered it into evidence. However, the jury has not actually seen these photos. The judge has wanted to keep this case moving along, so when prosecutors tried to enter the actual photographic evidence, when they tried to publish it so the jury could see it in the courtroom, the judge said, no, lets move along, the testimony is enough. However, the jury will see these pictures once they go back into the jury room after the case, both sides have rested, when they go into their deliberations. Of course, theyre not allowed to watch tv, not allowed to see any of the News Articles about this trial, so, likely anderson, they wont be seeing it on your show or elsewhere, but yes, they will get these pictures that show just how lavishly Paul Manafort lived. The ostrich coat is a little disappointing now that ive seen the pictures. Did the Prosecution Say why they might not call gates as a witness . You know, its quite possible that the prosecution was just bluffing here, because when they said we might, we might not, it actually came during questioning
of an fbi agent. And he introduced some of the evidence that they got during this raid of Paul Manaforts condo last summer. And one of the items said gates agenda. So, as soon as that came up, the judge stopped the proceeding. Again, the judge has been very vocal here, and the judge said, why are you questioning him about something gates did . Gates work product. If youre going to have gates up here testifying. Thats when prosecutors said, well, we might, we might not. So its possible it was bluff. Its also possible theyre trying to throw the defense off their game, because of course, the defense has said they will rely on rick gates testimony, essentially, to discredit him as the real liar, the real stealer, the real embezzler. So, it remains to be seen. There were also more details that came out today about the raid on manaforts house. Thats exactly right. They had an fbi agent on the stand who was present for that Predawn Raid Last July at Paul Manaforts condo right here in alexandria, virginia. He really laid out what happened. Now, at the time, there were some reports that this was a
noknock raid, that fbi agents just burst into the home. This fbi agent said no, we actually knocked three times, waiting before each and every knock. And then when there was no answer, we entered the home with a key we had. Thats when we saw Paul Manafort standing there. Of course Paul Manafort has portrayed it as him being stunned. Fbi agents at that point did take hundreds of documents, all of which theyre relying on heavily in this case for their prosecution. Anderson . Jessica, i appreciate it. Joining me now to discuss cnn senior legal analyst preet bharara. Who used to be the u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york. First of all, the idea that rick gates might not take the stand, that the prosecution may not call him i mean, why do you think that would be . Because clearly the defense is putting a lot on saying, basically, Rick Gates Is the villain here. As an additional matter, the government made the decision to sign up rick gates as a cooperating witness to give him the potential leniency from the judge if he testifies truth
truthlyfully, et cetera. They made a determination that gates had substantial assistance to give to the government. But when it comes down to trial, when the rubber meets the road, it may be true, as the report said, that theyre bluffing. But also as sometimes is the case, you see how the evidence goes in and if the documents speak for themselves and if the other testimony so clearly sets out the violation of law, in this case, some of those being Paul Manafort had an interest in a foreign bank account, Didnt Disclose it. Thats not very complicated. You dont need a lot of commentary. May not even need rick gates. Right. Because the problem with Rick Gates Is, with every cooperating itness, its someone who isch thing to a little bit to save his own skin. Right. So you always have that layer of it. And theyre going to go after him because of that. Correct. And one of the things gates plead guilty to is lying to the fbi. Not just any kind of lie to the fbi, lying in the context of trying to get a disposition for himself. So, that subjects him to a lot of crossexamination, which we would stand all the time at trial. So, it a balance of seeing, do
we have enough evidence that speaks for itself without having to call this person who is going to attract a lot of terrible crossexamination. But the defense could still call him to the stand. Potentially. But he would have less power if the prosecution hasnt called him and put a lot of weight on what to what he has to say. You to be careful what you wish for. In some ways, rick gates, pr presumably, that the government signed him up, has the baggage, yes. But also probably has a lot of devastating commentary he could give about the intent of Paul Manafort. So if the defense calls him up, that could still come out as well . It could all come out. Then the prosecution would crossexamine as to all the other things. So its unclear, sometimes it would be very bad for the defense, i think, in some ways, if they dont if the prosecution doesnt call rick gates, even though the defense can call him, they made a big show of how terrible rick gates would be, its a little bit of a different circumstance when it becomes a defense witness versus a prosecution witness. Interesting. The idea that manafort was paying for all this stuff directly with wire transfers, a, i didnt know you could do that at stores. But is that is that legal . Only ostrich coat stores, apparently. Apparently. But i just seems if hes not paying taxes on this stuff, isnt it idiotic for him to get wire transfers from Offshore Banks into stores . Doesnt the government track that . There is a lot of idiocy in crime generally, and it seems that Paul Manafort is no exception to that. It seems like he was making a lot of money. He could have paid taxes on that money. Whats interesting, in some of the reporting that weve seen about the trial, is that the prosecutors are making a big deal of how he spent the money, the lavish lifestyle, the ostrich coat, talked about it at some length this evening. Which can sway the jury and have the jury feel, well, this person was motivated by greed and was cheating in a way that is offensive to the jury, but you do have to be careful about that. You can overdo it and you can be not proportional about it. And jurors begin to see if youre piling on. I wasnt there at the trial. I assume it was done elegantly
and proportionately. But you do have to be a little bit careful because it Doesnt Matter if he was Spending Money on an ostrich coat or his mothers surgery, the crime is the crime and how he spent the money actually Doesnt Matter, necessarily. I have to say, looking at those coats, its not sort of like, oh, my god, i cant believe he bought that brown coat. Its like a bunch of coats. Im not familiar with ostrich. I dont wear ostrich. I thought it was going to be feathers, in which case im a wool guy. A wool guy. All right. Give it time. A few years in tv youll be wearing ostrich. I follow you. Preet bharara, thanks. Up next, the tsa is supposed to keep us all safe, of course, in the skies, so, why is the agency considering not screening thousands of passengers . The answer in a cnn exclusive report in a moment. Sarah always chooses to take the stairs. But climbing 58,070 steps a year can be hard on her feet, knees, and lower back. Thats why she wears dr. Scholls orthotics. Theyre clinically proven to relieve pain and give you the comfort to move more. Dr. Scholls, born to move. Outline an elimination of Security Screening at small and some mediumsized airports that operate commercial planes with 60 seats or fewer. Tsas recent Cost Analysis estimates the move could save 115 million that could be used to bolster security at large airports. I think its stunning that this is even being seriously considered. Reporter the proposal does not lust which airports could be impacted, but says screening would be eliminated at more than 150. Tsa currently screens passengers at 440 airports. According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major ones. Their Operating Theory is attacks with small aircraft would not be as attractive a payoff to terrorists because the potential for loss of life would be less than what terrorists could achieve with larger planes. National Security Experts disagree. Isis, their message is attack
in any way you can, big or small against anybody you can go after. And so, the opportunity to go after a 50person Passenger Jet or aircraft is going to be reporter in an email to cnn tsa said, this is not a new issue. The regulations which establish tsa does not require screening below a certain level. So every year is the year that tsa will reconsider screening. Cnn asked tsa to point us to that regulation. The agency has not responded. 20 tsa employees recently met to evaluate the costsaving proposal that could mean less hassle for thousands of travelers. The group determined the plan could increase Security Vulnerabilities at airports. But overall the risk is low. Rene joins us now with more. I understand there have been some new developments just since your story broke. Right pl anderson, after our
story broke tsa sent Talking Points out to all of its Senior Leadership communicating just how to respond to the many inquiries at airports nationwide. And the Talking Points note that a final decision has not been made. And it goes on to say that tsa remains very committed to its very core mission and it says that any potential operational changes to better allocate limited Taxpayer Resources are simply part of predecisional discussions and would not take place without a Risk Assessment. And you know, it is cnns reporting that there was a Risk Assessment completed. Is this the first time tsas considered this . In your statement it seemed like something that every year its kind of under review. Right. And some of our sources whove been at tsa for quite some time push back on whether theyre being loose with the word consideration. We do know this. The idea was floated as far back as 2011. It met a lot of resistance from
cities, states, the Airline Industry and even congress. The proposal has since been resurrected. But the people within the agency who are veterans whove been there for quite some time say this is different. This proposal involved a Cost Analysis as well as a Risk Assessment. They say that doesnt happen every year, anderson. All right. Rene marsh, appreciate it. Want to check in with chris, see what hes working on for Cuomo Prime Time at the top of the hour. Chris . Well, you and i disagree about twitter. I say that the tweets matter, especially the president s. You tell me not to go so heavy on twitter in general. But tonight i win. And heres why, anderson. Im going to make a case tonight. Were going to point out on the magic wall why the tweets matter on two levels. Why they may matter to prosecutors and not as opinions but as potential admissions. And why they matter on a larger part of our political reality right now with the introduction of the president s new conspiracy pals of q anonymous. I should point out im not saying the president s tweets or tweets in general dont matter, im just saying your tweets. You need to back off a little bit. You dont need to put your heart into them. I stretched what you usually say to effect and to play for advantage. But you are telling the truth. You usually limit it to just to me. It just wasnt as helpful to me in this argument. I just think youd be happier in general. Maybe not. Anythings got to help. Ill still follow you on instagram. Chris, very much. David gergen mentioned early in the program, chris just mentioned as well, were going to take a look at an element of trump rallies including last night, members of this group called qanon. You see their sign there. Believers in conspiracy theory. Their movement is just now surfacing to a large audience. Well detail what it is ahead. I visualize travel rewards. I receive travel rewards. Going new places. oh going out for a bite. Going anytime. Rewarded learn more at theexplorercard. Com
with the right steps, hasnt left my side. 80 of Recurrent Ischemic strokes could be prevented. A bayer Aspirin Regimen is one step to help prevent another stroke. So, im doing all i can to stay in his life. Be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an Aspirin Regimen. You may not know very much about a group called qanon, a group that embraces a wide variety of these theories. You can see signs last night at trumps rally. Qanons presence is growing. Randi kaye tonight has an explanation. Reporter qanon is a fringe group built on Conspiracy Theories and devoted to donald trump. The q represents a real person. Someone who is anonymous who claims to have access to Government Secrets. Intel that he or she refers to as crumbs that are revealed in dark corners of the web. Those socalled classified secrets, all of them false, then are shared on websites like facebook, twitter and youtube. Some of the Conspiracy Theories that have been shared under the banner of q, that the Las Vegas Concert shooting was actually a botched attempt to assassinate the saudi crown prince. And that president obama and
hillary clinton are actually the ones under investigation by Robert Mueller, not the trump campaign. Also that trump was pretending to favor putin so it would force an investigation into the democrats. The group seems to have grown stronger last year after the president said this. You guys know what this represents . I dont know maybe its the calm before the storm. Reporter weeks later someone calling themselves q began to post cryptic messages in an online thread called calm before the storm. Q claimed to be a highlevel government insider. Followers believe q even flew on air force one. At one point qanon had falsely suggested certain hollywood celebrities were pedophiles, Posting Video of the alleged victims on youtube. Another theory that gained steam, lies about slain dnc staffer seth rich. Explosive developments in the mysterious murder of former dnc staffer seth rich. Reporter one of the theories posted read q bombshell. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ordered seth richs murder. And suggested someone has put together some very significant qanon bread crumbs and baked a Bombshell Loaf of bread. Police say it was a botched robbery. Wasserman schultz called the rumors vial. More recently qanon evangelists started bombarding a reporter for the conservative website the daily caller insisting he ask about qanon at the white house briefing. He refused to do it. I have people commenting on my personal instagram photos saying im a coward who needs to do my damn job and ask about q. So yeah, it was like a nonstop of three, four days of online harassment. Reporter while its unclear how many people believe these lies, awareness of qanon really began to mushroom after the socalled pizzagate conspiracy. A wild theory that falsely connected highranking