Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. Attorney general Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witchhunt right now before it can stain our country any longer. Bob mueller and the democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the usa. The key sentence, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witchhunt. Thats what the president said. He said stop it right now. It sounds like the president , who Chief Executive wants to see jeff session, who works for him and the russia investigation ended right now. That is what it sounds like, because that is actually what the president wrote. Unless, of course, you believe his Press Secretary and tv lawyer who scrambled to try and convince the public that what the president said about what he wants to see happen and happen right now was in no way a directive to actually make it happen and happen right now. No, according to them, it was only some guys opinion, the guy who happens to be president , Commander In Chief. Now stopping this investigation, its complicated. Sessions would have to recuse himself. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein might have to be
Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. Theyre considered official statements by the president of the United States. Doh spicer. 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 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. Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. The story centers on talks between the president s legal team and Robert Mueller over a possible president ial interview. We now have a better idea of the terms mr. Mueller may be offering. Evan perez and Gloria Borger got the story. Evan joins us by phone. What do you know about where these negotiations stand right now . Well, anderson, there is an important concession by the Special Counsel in this latest proposal. Were told that they finally got a response from the Special Counsel, first time in almost a month that theyve heard back from the mueller team. And in this proposal, they are essentially asking, theyre suggesting that theyre willing to limit the number of Obstruction Questions that the president would be asked, but that he would still be asked some of those questions in a sitdown interview. So the president s team has been proposing this idea of a take home test. I like to call it a takehome test where the president gets to write answers to some questions about anything related to things that happened after he was
inaugurated as president. So anything having to do with obstruction would come in this written test, so to speak. 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 this 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. Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. An act possibly of obstruction of justice. It is remarkable the extent to which the president and the white house are continually walking back things that the president has said. He says them very clearly. Whether hes thought about it or not, but in 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 no, thats what the president actually believe. Absolutely right. And in fact going back in history, the president of the United States actually has fired people on twitter. Right. 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 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 Special Counsel. But there is also a subtext here, anderson, which is all of the president s surrogates, his cronies on capitol hill that are calling for the impeachment of Rod Rosenstein who controls this investigation and the other kinds of intimidation coming from my colleagues unfortunately, very unwisely on capitol hill on the republican side. Do you think the investigation can be properly completed without an interview of the president . No. The president has to be interviewed. Because to figure out intent . To know what the intent was, to give him an opportunity to clarify what he meant by these kinds of tweets and a variety of others that he has sent and conversations and other points he may have made privately. A lot of it is in the public eye, but some of it may be
privately known only to mueller at this point. Mueller knows a lot more than we do. If you were the president s attorney, though, you would not want him to sit down with Robert Mueller, would you . Given what he said in front of Vladimir Putin on a world stage with cameras rolling that they then have to walk back, oh, i said wouldnt, i meant would. What he would say to Robert Mueller, there is just no telling what would come out of his mouth. Thats why i think youre seeing this reluctance and constantly moving of goalposts by Rudy Giuliani about what he would accept as a condition for sitting down. Remember, just a couple of weeks ago, he said there has to be proof of a crime committed by the president. You have to show us your evidence. Before well sit down with you at all. Now theyre using other goalposts. And i think that ultimately, they are very, very reluctant, and understandably so because the president is a tinderbox of Potential Perjury. Senator blumenthal, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Other views now joining us. Alan dershowitz, author of the
case against impeaching trump. Cnn legal analyst anne 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. So 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. 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. 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 youre absolutely right that for the most part if youre completely innocent, the risks are lower. But there are risks even if youre innocent. If you have people who are being squeezed. Remember judge ellis has said about manafort theyre not really interested in him. Theyre trying to squeeze him. And he used a term, a term i have used for years. Sometimes you can squeeze a witness into not only singing, but composing. If you can get a witness to compose, it really does become a perjury trap. But the biggest perjury trap is having a witness who is prone to lying. No quebec it. And also i think the way the professors describing perjury, it makes it seem like if there is 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. 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. So we talk 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 anymore. So what were seeing a little bit is this dance. My view is, look, people tell the president not to tweet. He tweets all the time. If you were his lawyer i assume
would not have told him to send that tweet this morning, yet he is pretty unstoppable. So my view is if he really wants to go in, hes going to go in. 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 General Jeff 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 intended 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, 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 he could actualize it and make it happen strikes me as almost not the point here. The point is that please. Finish your thought. Hold on. Just finish your 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 them sun just. Every one of my client has railed against prosecutors. Threatening prosecution. Now 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 it 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. Its an extraordinarily week obstruction case. You have no idea what the evidence they gathered is. Well, we know what the public evidence is. That doesnt mean anything. 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. What went on today as the case continues to speed through court. Also, why the governments never ending why they never ended up calling their star witness, excuse me. And next, the rage at trump rallies and the president s encouraging of it. Were keeping him honest, when we return. Today. Now that you know the truth, are you in good hands . If todays a attempt at downplaying the tweet could be comical at times, this next is not. Its downright disturbing. Its something the president encouraged people to do, something hes repeatedly encouraged people to do. 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 attend of last nights 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 angerer can lead to violence is 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 houses that courage or conviction to criticize what the president is encouraging, you would be mistaken. Here is Sarah Sanders generically condemning violence, something that did not happen last night, thankfully, but saying what did actually 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 far right conspiracy groups like qanon, which well talk about more. And even then as youll see, she lumped them together with the press, suggesting there is 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 not 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. [ chanting ] [ bleep ]. Stop lying Tell The Truth. Tell the truth. Right there. 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 that. Could teach your kid science, they could be in your carpool. They could be saying prayers next to you in church. But at these rallies that potential church goer might be raising a middle finger shouting as another man does 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 southing you suck, you suck. Youre only seeing less than a minute of it. But this kind of thing went on a whole lot longer. The president saw fit to encourage it on twitter. And again, Sarah Sanders did not see fit to condemn it simply 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 said there, the part about reporting accurately and fairly. Yes. Certainly people in the media have gotten things wrong. Ive gotten thing wrong. Certainly not often, but when we do, we correct it 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 Fact Checkers 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 sr surveillance. Filed the bin laden phone leak under urban 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. We doubt it. Well see if she holds herself to the same standards we hold ourselves to. Joining us is cnn political analyst david gergen. 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. If they were screaming at a 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 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 hint offers reporters being called traitors last night. If you put that, the enemies of people together along with a rally that 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. 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. An operation ive been involved in many other 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 withhold this. Right. Because heres whats at stake. When we had our hostages in iran, you know, for those 4 hundred 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 day to day 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. Be 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. Unless he stops this soon, if
there is violence against any reporter thats tied to this, the blood is going to be on his hands. It seems 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 then we got this new element of the qanon, which were reporting on. 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 ifft. 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. T water heater failed it rocked our world. We called usaa. And they greeted me as they always do. Sergeant baker, how are you . They took care of everything a to z. Having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa now thats a privilege. Agent beekman was one step ahead of them. Dits stole the lockbox from the wells fargo stagecoach, because he hid his customers gold in a different box. And the bandits, well, they got rocks. We protected your money then and were dedicated to helping protect it today. Like alerting you to certain Card Activity we find suspicious. If its not your purchase, well help you resolve it. Its a new day at wells fargo. But its a lot like our first day. Experience the versatilityy to of utility. With the highest form of luxury
and the highest function of capability, you can be in your element. In any element. Experience a range of suvs, perfect for any adventure at the lexus golden opportunity sales event. Experience amazing at your lexus dealer. But its tough to gete enough of their nutrients. New one a day with natures medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with natures medley. Vendors to the stand. These are 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 women as 123,000 at that car dealership, mercedesbenz. So really what prosecutors are trying to do here, theyre trying to lay out exactly how 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 doesnt. There were pictures introduced
into evidence . There were pictures. Sprurs plenty of pictures not only of the illustrious ostrich coat but luxury watches and luxury clothing that Paul Manafort had. Whats interesting 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. 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 steeler, the real embezzler. It remains to be seen. There were also more details that came out today about the raid on manaforts house. Thats exactly rite. 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 this 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 bar radar w. First mgates may not take the stand. Clearly the defense is putting a lot on saying 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 potential leniency from the judge if he testifies truthfully, 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 rub arer meets the road, it may be true 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. Rite. The problem with rick gates, with every cooperating witness, its someone who is testifying 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. Right. 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 withstand all the time in trial. Its a balance of trying to see 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 they could still call him to the stand. Potentially. But he would have less power if the prosecution hadnt 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 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. Its unclear. It will also 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
treschl 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. But it just seems if he is not paying taxes on the 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 loft money. He could evade 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, you talked about it 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 mohr money on an ostrich coat or for his mothers surgery, the crime was the crime. And how he spent the money doesnt matter, necessarily. I have to say looking at the coats, its not sort of oh my god, i cant believe he bought that brown coat. Its like a bunch of coats. Im not familiar with ostrich. I dont care 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 ostrich. I follow you. Preet bharara, thanks. The why is thes considering not screening thousands of passengers . The cnn exclusive report in a moment. On. It looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. The beat goes on. It looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. Ladiladi. Entresto is a Heart Failure medicine that helps your heart. So you can keep on doing what you love. In the largest Heart Failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. It helps improve your hearts ability to pump blood to the body. Dont take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. Dont take entresto with an Ace Inhibitor or aliskiren, or if youve had angioedema with an ace or arb. The most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. Ask your doctor about entresto for Heart Failure. Yeah entrust your heart to entresto. The beat goes on. Including nasal congestion, which most pills dont. And all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. Flonase sensimist. Across the United States without being screened. Thats according to internal documents obtained by cnn. The documents from june and july 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 approximately does not list 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. So the opportunity to go after a 50person Passenger Jet or aircraft is going to be very attractive to the group in terms of its messaging. 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 sinced 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 zrivs 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 foul on instagram. Chris, very much. David gergen mentioned early in the program, chris just mentioned as well, were going to take a look at pooshl element of trump rallies including last night members of this group called qanon. Their movement is just now surfacing to a large audience. Well detail what it is ahead. D, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. Addon advantage. Only when you book with expedia. Together, were building a better california. You may not know very much about a group called qanon, a group that emarbitrations a wide variety of these theories. 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 democratic officials to an alleged Child Trafficking Ring at a pizzeria in washington, d. C. But people believed it. Leading to one man opening fire on the restaurant. No one was hurt, but some worry it could be a precursor of violence spawned by the groups outlandish claims. Randi kaye, cnn, new york
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.