Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With Ana Cabrera 20180602

The special counsel cant compel the president to appear before them, to come and testify. They lay out all sorts of Different Reasons and also was seeking to sp resporespond to s the questions that the special counsel wants to ask the president about. Certainly some of the legal arguments, let me read straight from the letter here, this has to do with the constitution and constitutionality of whether or not the president can be forced to appear before the special counsel. And heres what it says. This is coming from, of course, the letter. It remains our position that the president s actions here by virtue of his position as the chief Law Enforcement officer could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired. So here, clearly, the president s lawyers arguing one of the things that he cant do, that is the president cant obstruct justice because he is the chief Law Enforcement officer. Now, some of the other issues as we know that the special counsel has been looking at is the flynn is Michael Flynn and his conversations with the ru also the Michael Flynn the fbi investigation, whether or not the president tried to interfere in that investigation. And heres an interesting argument from the lawyers in this case, because theyre arguing, essentially, that the president didnt even know that Michael Flynn was under investigation and therefore because they he didnt know that he was under investigation, how could he obstruct justice . Let me read that part of the letter to you. It says here, there could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an investigation that had been neither confirmed nor denied to white house counsel, and that they had every reason, based on general flynns statement and his continued security clearance, to assume was not ongoing. Theres a part in this letter, anna, where they talk about how Michael Flynn and certainly folks at the white house were under the impression that the fbi was going to clear Michael Flynn, that he was not under investigation, that they did not believe that he lied and therefore theres no way that the president could obstruct justice in this case. And finally, i think one of the more important things here is the meeting that occurred at trump tower with the russian that don junior participated in. Theres a some requests from the special counsel for information regarding that, specifically a statement that the president helped draft, and here for the first time, we have an admission from the president s lawyers that he helped craft this statement, and the response here from the lawyers to the special counsel on that matter reads as such. You have received all of the notes, communications, and testimony indicating that the president dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, donald trump jr. Now, of course, this is relating to the trump tower meeting with the russian lawyer, where they were supposed to talk about adoptions. There was misleading information about whether or not this was going to be about promised dirt on Hillary Clinton that Robert Mueller and his team is also investigating. And finally, this letter goes on to say that that meeting that donald trump jr. Meeting and the statement that the president winded up crafting is a personal matter, and that the special counsel has really no right to investigate that. But i think whats really important here, also, is that since january, at least, the president s lawyers have been making these arguments to the special counsel as to why the president should not be subjected to an interview, and it seems at least as far as from everything we know that thats not working because basically were still in june and theyre still arguing with the special counsel about the fact that he should not be subjected to an interview. And of course that letter was dli delivered in january. He has largely a different legal team now. Is there any reason to believe or is there any indication that this legal strategy has changed since that letter was delivered . Reporter no, there is no indication. In fact, i think its still ongoing. Theyre still using the same arguments, and weve heard certainly from Rudy Giuliani, from other lawyers that are working for the president , make these same arguments now for several months. Whats also interesting, anna, is that this letter was hand delivered some two days after the president there had been a potential date set up of january 27th where they were going to set down for an interview, if you remember, we remember just reporting that the other day. So, this, something happens, there was supposed to be they had a tentative date scheduled, something occurs, and then the president s lawyers decide, you know what, we dont want him to do this interview, and now we know what appears to be two days later, this letter is hand delivered to the special counsel. And then boris, the president is already reacting to this report. Fill us in. Reporter thats right, anna. In fact, the president reacted before this article was even published. He sent out a tweet that left us scratching our heads, and shortly after the New York Times published this piece, the president had tweeted out, there was no collusion with russia except by the democrats. When will this very expensive witch hunt hoax ever end. So bad for our country. Is the special Counsel Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media . Should be looking at dems corruption instead. So the president not only preempting this piece but also seeking to frame it as a potential leak coming from his own department of justice and from the special counsel. Perhaps this shouldnt come as a surprise. The president has frequently attacked his own department of justice, including the man that he named attorney general, jeff sessions. Further, hes been propagating conspiracy theories about a deep state implanting a spy in his campaign to help the Hillary Clinton campaign, something the white house has not offered any proof for. Weve yet to get any indication that indeed anyone at the department of justice or the special counsel provided these letters to the New York Times. I did ask Sarah Sanders about this. She forwarded all of our questions about the president s tweet and the article to outside counsel. Boris sanchez, shimon, thank you. Joining me now a member of the House Judiciary Committee and also a democrat. You are a lawyer so i want to get your reaction to this letter sent back in january and do you think the president s attorneys are right or wrong in their assessment . Its good to be with you. This is part of the tricks of defending someone who clearly has a rocky path forward. What the lawyers are trying to do is obviously create their own narrative that matches the tweets that the president s been sending. Youd have to ask the question, certainly, the president has constitutional powers, but you have to ask the question, why hes afraid to have such an interview. Number two, youd have to imagine that he knows that hes engaged in obstruction of justice, as evidenced by the interview that he did with nbc and he clearly said, well, the reason that i fired comey was because he didnt stop the russian investigation. He said that i was thinking about this russian thing is i k what the words or the quote was directly. But in this letter, they seem to argue that the president just cant obstruct justice, period. In fact, let me read you the words so you can respond to this. And i quote, it remains our position that the president s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief Law Enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired. So, congresswoman, to a layman, that sounds a little like a word salad. Whether you agree with it or not, is it a solid legal argument . No well, i dont agree with it and i think it has a legal argument that can be rebutted, because first of all, yes, the president has constitutional powers. He has constitutional powers to pardon, constitutional powers that involve the executive privilege. But hes not above the rule of law. What the president has consistently done is raise questions about his willingness to adhere to the law. He has probably documented instances of obstructing justice. And the question has to be, really, possibly, a congressional question is whether the president has abused power. Remember, president nixon took to firing any number of his cabinet officers. That could be considered obstruction of justice. Ultimately, it was decided upon by the United States congress as it relates to an abuse of power. So, theyre creating a narrative to avoid or to say to the Mueller Investigation that he is immune from prosecution. Im going to allow the Mueller Investigation to continue and give us their interpretation and their results, but this is what lawyers do. They set a narrative. I dont agree with their interpretation, because i dont agree that every manner of action by a president of the United States is protected by executive privilege, and as well, that a president cannot be questioned about the obstruction of justice. What will settle this is if the president subjects himself to the interview. They are both rejecting that and also want the American People to believe that any president , all president s are above the rule of law, and are in totality immune from prosecution. But i think that there is a posture for president s in the three branches of government, equal as they are, to certainly not be in the position of abusing power. That is not the kind of leadership the American People deserve, and the questions about his abuse of power should be raised by members of the United States congress as the Mueller Investigation continues and provides the congress with a report. Okay, i want to ask you about some new developments in puerto rico right now, because we have new numbers about the number of people who died following Hurricane Maria last september, and the numbers are staggering. Harvard study this week says it could be as many as 4,600 people who died in some way connected to the hurricane, as a result of not being able to get medical care, perhaps, because of the situation that the hurricane left behind. Now we have new numbers that came out in the last 24 hours from the department of health in puerto rico saying that there were at least 1,400 more people who died in the months after the hurricane hit compared to the number of people who died in those same months the year before. You want to open an actual inquiry into this. Tell us about what that would look like. Absolutely. I think it is imperative, and im joining my colleagues, some have asked for the Government Accountability agency. I believe the United States department of Homeland Security should engage in an Inspector General investigation. That is because, of course, one of the agencies who i know tried to work very hard, but it really comes from the top. If the president of the United States had no clue and no understanding, no experience with dealing with natural disasters, ive dealt with Hurricane Katrina because tens upon tens of thousands came to houston. In addition, 1,500 people died in Hurricane Katrina. They drowned when the levees broke. Ive dealt with hurricane rita just recently, Hurricane Harvey. Deaths occur, and deaths occur in the extended period after the hurricane. Everyone should have known, including the president of the United States, that when you leave an island in the devastation that puerto rico was and the Virgin Islands without electricity, without food, that the death that came about were attributable to Hurricane Harvey. The deaths that came about because kidney machines didnt work, because elderly didnt get food, because infections started, because people drowned in small amounts of water, was attributable to the lack of consciousness of this administration as evidenced by the visit tragedy of this administration, when a paper towel was thrown. So, in order for us to do better as we enter into the Hurricane Season, im here in houston, texas. Ive been spending time with High School Graduating classes, some of whom i had to say to them that they made it through Hurricane Harvey in a devastating way and were about to enter another season. We must have preplanning for the territories. We must preposition hurricane equipment and staff, and we must do that on the gulf region as well. This was a fault and a failure of this administration and now they must fix it. They must find out the actual facts. They need to find out why it happened, and they need to cure it for this Hurricane Season, and they need to stop hiding that in actuality, their failure of taking seriously the tragedy in puerto rico and in the Virgin Islands in terms of not having food, equipment, electricity, was really a failure of the administration. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson lee, i really appreciate your time. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. I do want to just congratulate everyone whos graduating this year. Thank you. Absolutely, especially because it has been a tough year for a lot of these high school students, especially in texas. Our hearts are with those in santa fe, texas, this weekend too. We know their graduation was yesterday. Thank you again. I want to discuss more of these revelations, especially concerning the trump letter with our panel. Lets start there with cnn legal analyst paul callan, it toedito the weekly standard. This letter President Trumps lawyers sent back in january. Im not sure if youve had a chance to read all the way through but do you think trumps team has a solid case . I have had an opportunity to look at the letter. Of course a lot of this material has been coming up in bits and pieces over the last few months. This issue of whether a president can be compelled to testify before a grand jury, the courts have never been Crystal Clear about it. For instance, going all the way back to thomas jefferson, he was subpoenaed to testify in the trial of aaron burr. Burr was on trial for treason. You know, you think we have problems today. That was what was going on then and of course burr had killed secretary of state alexander hamilton, and jefferson refused to appear to testify. He did ultimately submit some personal papers for the court to consider. So, he resisted it. Under the nixon administration, nixon finally agreed and was compelled by the court to produce the nixon tapes, but nixon never personally testified. And the only examples we have of personal testimony are situations where president s have voluntarily agreed to testify. Bill clinton did that, for instance. So its still an open question whether a resistant president could be compelled to appear in front of a grand jury. Ron, the president is accusing the mueller team of leaking this lett. Who do you think is helped more by having it out there . Reporter thats a really good question. There has not been a lot of leaking that you could trace back to the mueller team. I think, you know, this usually, when you get this kind of leak, there is some level of dissent within a team, and i would assume within the defense team. I mean, the real question to me, theres kind of a contradiction at the heart of this, which is the argument from the lawyers seems to be that the president cannot obstruct justice, cannot obstruct an investigation because his power over federal investigations is virtually unlimited. Well, that would be news to the house of representatives in 1974 whose articles 1 and 2 of impeachment against Richard Nixon referenced obstruction of justice, acting to impede and obstruct an investigation and certainly the republican majority in the house in 1998, article 3 of their impeachment against bill clinton, referenced obstruction of justice, and it, you know, the question of whether that ultimately would hold in a court of law may be somewhat secondary unless you believe Robert Muellers going to challenge the Justice Department rulings in the 70s and the 90s that you can not indict a sitting president. Ultimately, these questions will go before congress and they have twice now, in recent memory, said that they believe obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. I want to touch on just a detail in this letter, bill. The president s attorneys acknowledge he did dictate his sons misleading statement about that trump tower meeting with the russians that was in the summer of 2016. Thats not what the president s attorney or press secretary Different Reasons<\/a> and also was seeking to sp resporespond to s the questions that the special counsel wants to ask the president about. Certainly some of the legal arguments, let me read straight from the letter here, this has to do with the constitution and constitutionality of whether or not the president can be forced to appear before the special counsel. And heres what it says. This is coming from, of course, the letter. It remains our position that the president s actions here by virtue of his position as the chief Law Enforcement<\/a> officer could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired. So here, clearly, the president s lawyers arguing one of the things that he cant do, that is the president cant obstruct justice because he is the chief Law Enforcement<\/a> officer. Now, some of the other issues as we know that the special counsel has been looking at is the flynn is Michael Flynn<\/a> and his conversations with the ru also the Michael Flynn<\/a> the fbi investigation, whether or not the president tried to interfere in that investigation. And heres an interesting argument from the lawyers in this case, because theyre arguing, essentially, that the president didnt even know that Michael Flynn<\/a> was under investigation and therefore because they he didnt know that he was under investigation, how could he obstruct justice . Let me read that part of the letter to you. It says here, there could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an investigation that had been neither confirmed nor denied to white house counsel, and that they had every reason, based on general flynns statement and his continued security clearance, to assume was not ongoing. Theres a part in this letter, anna, where they talk about how Michael Flynn<\/a> and certainly folks at the white house were under the impression that the fbi was going to clear Michael Flynn<\/a>, that he was not under investigation, that they did not believe that he lied and therefore theres no way that the president could obstruct justice in this case. And finally, i think one of the more important things here is the meeting that occurred at trump tower with the russian that don junior participated in. Theres a some requests from the special counsel for information regarding that, specifically a statement that the president helped draft, and here for the first time, we have an admission from the president s lawyers that he helped craft this statement, and the response here from the lawyers to the special counsel on that matter reads as such. You have received all of the notes, communications, and testimony indicating that the president dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times<\/a> article on behalf of his son, donald trump jr. Now, of course, this is relating to the trump tower meeting with the russian lawyer, where they were supposed to talk about adoptions. There was misleading information about whether or not this was going to be about promised dirt on Hillary Clinton<\/a> that Robert Mueller<\/a> and his team is also investigating. And finally, this letter goes on to say that that meeting that donald trump jr. Meeting and the statement that the president winded up crafting is a personal matter, and that the special counsel has really no right to investigate that. But i think whats really important here, also, is that since january, at least, the president s lawyers have been making these arguments to the special counsel as to why the president should not be subjected to an interview, and it seems at least as far as from everything we know that thats not working because basically were still in june and theyre still arguing with the special counsel about the fact that he should not be subjected to an interview. And of course that letter was dli delivered in january. He has largely a different legal team now. Is there any reason to believe or is there any indication that this legal strategy has changed since that letter was delivered . Reporter no, there is no indication. In fact, i think its still ongoing. Theyre still using the same arguments, and weve heard certainly from Rudy Giuliani<\/a>, from other lawyers that are working for the president , make these same arguments now for several months. Whats also interesting, anna, is that this letter was hand delivered some two days after the president there had been a potential date set up of january 27th where they were going to set down for an interview, if you remember, we remember just reporting that the other day. So, this, something happens, there was supposed to be they had a tentative date scheduled, something occurs, and then the president s lawyers decide, you know what, we dont want him to do this interview, and now we know what appears to be two days later, this letter is hand delivered to the special counsel. And then boris, the president is already reacting to this report. Fill us in. Reporter thats right, anna. In fact, the president reacted before this article was even published. He sent out a tweet that left us scratching our heads, and shortly after the New York Times<\/a> published this piece, the president had tweeted out, there was no collusion with russia except by the democrats. When will this very expensive witch hunt hoax ever end. So bad for our country. Is the special Counsel Justice Department<\/a> leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media<\/a> . Should be looking at dems corruption instead. So the president not only preempting this piece but also seeking to frame it as a potential leak coming from his own department of justice and from the special counsel. Perhaps this shouldnt come as a surprise. The president has frequently attacked his own department of justice, including the man that he named attorney general, jeff sessions. Further, hes been propagating conspiracy theories about a deep state implanting a spy in his campaign to help the Hillary Clinton<\/a> campaign, something the white house has not offered any proof for. Weve yet to get any indication that indeed anyone at the department of justice or the special counsel provided these letters to the New York Times<\/a>. I did ask Sarah Sanders<\/a> about this. She forwarded all of our questions about the president s tweet and the article to outside counsel. Boris sanchez, shimon, thank you. Joining me now a member of the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> and also a democrat. You are a lawyer so i want to get your reaction to this letter sent back in january and do you think the president s attorneys are right or wrong in their assessment . Its good to be with you. This is part of the tricks of defending someone who clearly has a rocky path forward. What the lawyers are trying to do is obviously create their own narrative that matches the tweets that the president s been sending. Youd have to ask the question, certainly, the president has constitutional powers, but you have to ask the question, why hes afraid to have such an interview. Number two, youd have to imagine that he knows that hes engaged in obstruction of justice, as evidenced by the interview that he did with nbc and he clearly said, well, the reason that i fired comey was because he didnt stop the russian investigation. He said that i was thinking about this russian thing is i k what the words or the quote was directly. But in this letter, they seem to argue that the president just cant obstruct justice, period. In fact, let me read you the words so you can respond to this. And i quote, it remains our position that the president s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief Law Enforcement<\/a> officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired. So, congresswoman, to a layman, that sounds a little like a word salad. Whether you agree with it or not, is it a solid legal argument . No well, i dont agree with it and i think it has a legal argument that can be rebutted, because first of all, yes, the president has constitutional powers. He has constitutional powers to pardon, constitutional powers that involve the executive privilege. But hes not above the rule of law. What the president has consistently done is raise questions about his willingness to adhere to the law. He has probably documented instances of obstructing justice. And the question has to be, really, possibly, a congressional question is whether the president has abused power. Remember, president nixon took to firing any number of his cabinet officers. That could be considered obstruction of justice. Ultimately, it was decided upon by the United States<\/a> congress as it relates to an abuse of power. So, theyre creating a narrative to avoid or to say to the Mueller Investigation<\/a> that he is immune from prosecution. Im going to allow the Mueller Investigation<\/a> to continue and give us their interpretation and their results, but this is what lawyers do. They set a narrative. I dont agree with their interpretation, because i dont agree that every manner of action by a president of the United States<\/a> is protected by executive privilege, and as well, that a president cannot be questioned about the obstruction of justice. What will settle this is if the president subjects himself to the interview. They are both rejecting that and also want the American People<\/a> to believe that any president , all president s are above the rule of law, and are in totality immune from prosecution. But i think that there is a posture for president s in the three branches of government, equal as they are, to certainly not be in the position of abusing power. That is not the kind of leadership the American People<\/a> deserve, and the questions about his abuse of power should be raised by members of the United States<\/a> congress as the Mueller Investigation<\/a> continues and provides the congress with a report. Okay, i want to ask you about some new developments in puerto rico right now, because we have new numbers about the number of people who died following Hurricane Maria<\/a> last september, and the numbers are staggering. Harvard study this week says it could be as many as 4,600 people who died in some way connected to the hurricane, as a result of not being able to get medical care, perhaps, because of the situation that the hurricane left behind. Now we have new numbers that came out in the last 24 hours from the department of health in puerto rico saying that there were at least 1,400 more people who died in the months after the hurricane hit compared to the number of people who died in those same months the year before. You want to open an actual inquiry into this. Tell us about what that would look like. Absolutely. I think it is imperative, and im joining my colleagues, some have asked for the Government Accountability<\/a> agency. I believe the United States<\/a> department of Homeland Security<\/a> should engage in an Inspector General<\/a> investigation. That is because, of course, one of the agencies who i know tried to work very hard, but it really comes from the top. If the president of the United States<\/a> had no clue and no understanding, no experience with dealing with natural disasters, ive dealt with Hurricane Katrina<\/a> because tens upon tens of thousands came to houston. In addition, 1,500 people died in Hurricane Katrina<\/a>. They drowned when the levees broke. Ive dealt with hurricane rita just recently, Hurricane Harvey<\/a>. Deaths occur, and deaths occur in the extended period after the hurricane. Everyone should have known, including the president of the United States<\/a>, that when you leave an island in the devastation that puerto rico was and the Virgin Islands<\/a> without electricity, without food, that the death that came about were attributable to Hurricane Harvey<\/a>. The deaths that came about because kidney machines didnt work, because elderly didnt get food, because infections started, because people drowned in small amounts of water, was attributable to the lack of consciousness of this administration as evidenced by the visit tragedy of this administration, when a paper towel was thrown. So, in order for us to do better as we enter into the Hurricane Season<\/a>, im here in houston, texas. Ive been spending time with High School Graduating<\/a> classes, some of whom i had to say to them that they made it through Hurricane Harvey<\/a> in a devastating way and were about to enter another season. We must have preplanning for the territories. We must preposition hurricane equipment and staff, and we must do that on the gulf region as well. This was a fault and a failure of this administration and now they must fix it. They must find out the actual facts. They need to find out why it happened, and they need to cure it for this Hurricane Season<\/a>, and they need to stop hiding that in actuality, their failure of taking seriously the tragedy in puerto rico and in the Virgin Islands<\/a> in terms of not having food, equipment, electricity, was really a failure of the administration. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson<\/a> lee, i really appreciate your time. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. I do want to just congratulate everyone whos graduating this year. Thank you. Absolutely, especially because it has been a tough year for a lot of these high school students, especially in texas. Our hearts are with those in santa fe, texas, this weekend too. We know their graduation was yesterday. Thank you again. I want to discuss more of these revelations, especially concerning the trump letter with our panel. Lets start there with cnn legal analyst paul callan, it toedito the weekly standard. This letter President Trump<\/a>s lawyers sent back in january. Im not sure if youve had a chance to read all the way through but do you think trumps team has a solid case . I have had an opportunity to look at the letter. Of course a lot of this material has been coming up in bits and pieces over the last few months. This issue of whether a president can be compelled to testify before a grand jury, the courts have never been Crystal Clear<\/a> about it. For instance, going all the way back to thomas jefferson, he was subpoenaed to testify in the trial of aaron burr. Burr was on trial for treason. You know, you think we have problems today. That was what was going on then and of course burr had killed secretary of state alexander hamilton, and jefferson refused to appear to testify. He did ultimately submit some personal papers for the court to consider. So, he resisted it. Under the nixon administration, nixon finally agreed and was compelled by the court to produce the nixon tapes, but nixon never personally testified. And the only examples we have of personal testimony are situations where president s have voluntarily agreed to testify. Bill clinton did that, for instance. So its still an open question whether a resistant president could be compelled to appear in front of a grand jury. Ron, the president is accusing the mueller team of leaking this lett. Who do you think is helped more by having it out there . Reporter thats a really good question. There has not been a lot of leaking that you could trace back to the mueller team. I think, you know, this usually, when you get this kind of leak, there is some level of dissent within a team, and i would assume within the defense team. I mean, the real question to me, theres kind of a contradiction at the heart of this, which is the argument from the lawyers seems to be that the president cannot obstruct justice, cannot obstruct an investigation because his power over federal investigations is virtually unlimited. Well, that would be news to the house of representatives in 1974 whose articles 1 and 2 of impeachment against Richard Nixon<\/a> referenced obstruction of justice, acting to impede and obstruct an investigation and certainly the republican majority in the house in 1998, article 3 of their impeachment against bill clinton, referenced obstruction of justice, and it, you know, the question of whether that ultimately would hold in a court of law may be somewhat secondary unless you believe Robert Mueller<\/a>s going to challenge the Justice Department<\/a> rulings in the 70s and the 90s that you can not indict a sitting president. Ultimately, these questions will go before congress and they have twice now, in recent memory, said that they believe obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. I want to touch on just a detail in this letter, bill. The president s attorneys acknowledge he did dictate his sons misleading statement about that trump tower meeting with the russians that was in the summer of 2016. Thats not what the president s attorney or press secretary Sarah Sanders<\/a> told the American People<\/a>. They denied trump had any involvement. Yeah, that is a striking concession. When you read through the letter, ive done it quickly, its not a letter designed to persuade Robert Mueller<\/a> or any serious lawyers of anything. Its designed, ultimately, for public consumption, to be released publicly, to try to make their case to their own supporters, primarily, to justify not testifying and to justify pardons and to justify a generally hostile stance, i would say, towards the investigation. So, i think, a, this is not an internal legal document, really. Its a Public Relations<\/a> document if you just read through it. If any serious lawyer reads it, theres not detailed legal arguments in there. Theyre broad, extremely broad assertions and a lot of rhetoric. And getting some things on the record, as you just said, which maybe they need to kind of correct a little bit for ultimately where their defense going to be. But then the question is, why did they leak it now . I assume they leaked it. Muellers team has been airtight, and i think Rudy Giuliani<\/a> gave us a clue to that a few weeks ago. On the Stormy Daniels<\/a> thing, i cant remember which detail it was, he said something, and they said, whyd you say this, and he said, you got to get this stuff out ahead of time so you can make your case and i think this is a case of there must be either, i would suspect, either they think a subpoena is coming soon or indictments are coming soon on obstruction. For some reason, they want to get their argument out there so their people can get used to making this very broad and difficult to sustain argument but nonetheless an argument thats got at least the pretense of legal backing, 20page memo, you know, trumps supporters can start making this argument now. For me, the question of why leaking it now is very interesting. Paul, do you agree . Its more Public Relations<\/a> than maybe Legal Defense<\/a> . Oh, i absolutely agree with bill, and by the way, a lawyer can write 20 pages about almost anything, so, you know, the length of this doesnt determine its persuasiveness, and i think, essentially, what they want to say and what they want the public to believe, ultimately, is that, hey, weve been as cooperative as possible throughout offering this level of information, and its mueller whos being unreasonable and treating the president with disrespect. And i think bill emphasizes this fact. This whole process is a political process, an impeachment is a political act, and you have to have the votes for impeachment and so it is a Public Relations<\/a> battle. Ron, when you look at this issue of potential collusion, which we know is not a legal term, but, you know, what could be entailed when were talking about collusion. Thats why i come back to what they revealed in this letter regarding that meeting at trump tower, because theres always been that lingering question as to whether trump knew about that meeting. Why would he dictate a statement about a meeting that he supposedly knew nothing about and then, i mean, theyre saying he dictated it. Yeah, and i cant answer that. I mean, right. You know, we have the whole we have the whole kind of hanging detail out there of the blocked cell phone number that donald trump jr. Called around the meeting, which the democrats on the House Intelligence Committee<\/a> said the republicans refuse to follow up on. You know, and obviously raising the question of whether he informed his father about what went on. I think most people think that, you know, at this point, the personal liability of the president , his own personal involvement, if there is, is more on the question of obstructing the investigation than on what happened with russia or did not happen during the campaign since presumably anything that did happen would have occurred well below his level with, you know, many layers of deniability and i just go back to bills point here. I mean, this this, like many things, you know, rhetorical arguments and policies alike in the Trump Administration<\/a>, are much more about mobilizing and consolidating their base than trying to make a case to independent swing voters and we saw, you know, both particularly in the nixon case that there were substantial number of republicans across party lines who were willing to uphold the idea that there were transcendent standards, transcendent rules of law that applied to everyone, whether they were in your own party or not. This document seems to be banking on the opposite, on the belief that if you put any argument out there, this max mallist view, that your side will rally around that flag, however flimsy the legal underpinning is, and thats why i think this is going to get more turbulent, not less, as it goes forward. Gentlemen, i got to leave it there. Bill, crystal, i owe you the first question next time. I appreciate it. Coming up, puerto rican officials now acknowledging a higher death toll from Hurricane Maria<\/a>, but were only finding this out because researchers took the government to court for new numbers to be released. So, why did officials maintain a lower number for so long . And will the true toll ever be known . Were live in san juan. And the president this hour is prepping for his upcoming summit with kim jongun. As new reports emerge that the u. S. Is looking for ways to cover kims hotel bill. Is the u. S. Making too many concessions to the north with nothing in return . Well discuss. As a control enthusiast, im allbusiness when i travel. Even when i travel. For leisure. So i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle without starting any conversations or paying any upcharges. What can i say . Control suits me. Go national. Go like a pro. Your society was led by a woman, who governed thousands. Commanded armies. Yielded to no one. When i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. My name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. Now with 5 times more detail than other dna tests. Order your kit at ancestrydna. Com puerto rico is bracing for another Hurricane Season<\/a> without even having recovered from the last one. When Hurricane Maria<\/a> ravaged the island in september, the death and the misery were shockingly plain to see in the aftermath immediately but were now learning the true death toll may be massively higher than the 64 deaths first reported. Puerto rican officials just released numbers showing upward of 1,400 additional deaths in the months after maria compared to the previous calendar year, and their numbers follow a harvard studying putting mariarelated deaths at more than 4,600. Thats a conservative estimate, they say. Cnns leyla santiago is joining us now from san juan. These reports are very nuanced. Can you help parse the numbers for us . Reporter well, listen, heres another number. More than 2 ,000, thats what were seeing in terms of the number of shoes that Puerto Ricans<\/a> have put out today starting yesterday in front of the Capitol Building<\/a> to represent each life. Number 791, nidia morales, number 839, and many of them leave notes. Number 784 is marsan and he writes, dad, i bought you these new shoes because you left us barefoot. I love you, dad. And this has been here since yesterday. Again, more than 2,000 shoes right now at the Capitol Building<\/a>. Its quite the sight to see. The words that i have heard today, sadness, tragedy, shame. Many Puerto Ricans<\/a> calling for a death toll that makes sense to them. Currently, the Government Official<\/a> death toll is at 64. People have been coming here almost to mourn. The organizers said to me something that stuck with me. She said, this is a funeral, and this is our cemetery. Theres also another woman that, when she arrived, her name is emma rodriguez, shes from aguadilla, far from where we are now and when she arrived, i could see she became overwhelmed with emotion. She had two pairs of shoes that she put down for people that she knew that died and when i asked her how she was feeling, she said, i can smell the death. This is death. And the timeliness of this, not only are people here feeling sad, feeling emotional, feeling quite frankly forgotten, but there is also anxiety because it is june 2nd. It is day two of the 2018 atlantic Hurricane Season<\/a>, and as we have spent the week going across this island to some of the most affected areas, we are still seeing people without power. We are still seeing people with blue tarps, 30day blue tarps, still protecting some of the homes on this island as we enter into the Hurricane Season<\/a>. So, while the harvard study that says more than 4,600 people is an estimate had certainly brought this to light again, many are saying the conditions that led to some of these deaths are still around, and need to be talked about, need to be put out there, need to not be forgotten. We need to we cant forget. We need to get to the bottom of it. Leyla santiago, thank you for that report. Coming up, the on and off again u. S. North korea summit back on. This after a 90minute meeting between President Trump<\/a> and a former north korean spy in the oval office. So, how is the president now preparing for the historic meeting with kim jongun . Details ahead. Woman i stay active by staying in rhythm. And to keep up this pace, i drink boost optimum. Boost optimum with 5 in 1 advanced nutrition helps support muscle, energy, bone, normal immune function, and vision. Boost optimum. Be up for life. But prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered. In jellyfish. In clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve shortterm memory. Prevagen. The name to remember. He eats a bowl of hammers at every meal he holds your house in the palm of his hand hes your home and auto man big jim, hes got you covered great big jim, there aint no other so, this is covered, right . Yes, maam. Take care of it for you right now. Giddyup hi this is jamie. We need some help. Pepsoriasis does that. It was tough getting out there on stage. I wanted to be clear. I wanted it to last. So i kept on fighting. I found something that worked. And keeps on working. Now . They see me. See me. See if cosentyx could make a difference for you cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Find clear skin that can last. Dont use if youre allergic to cosentyx. Before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. Or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. If you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. Serious allergic reactions may occur. Never give up. See me. See me. Clear skin can last. Dont hold back. Ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts. Im a small business, but i have. Big dreams. And big plans. So how do i make the efforts of 8 employees. Feel like 50 . How can i share new plans virtually . How can i download an efile . Virtual tours . Zipfile . Really big files . In seconds, not minutes. Just like that. Like everything. The answer is simple. Ill do what ive always done. Dream more, dream faster, and above all. Now, ill dream gig. Now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. Comcast, building americas largest gigspeed network. Right now, President Trump<\/a> is at camp david, back in north korea prep mode since he announced the singapore summit with kim jongun is back on schedule. This moment in the oval office before the president made it official. A Senior North Korean<\/a> representative hand delivering a personal letter from the north korean leader. No word from the white house yet on what exactly that letter says. Our International Diplomatic<\/a> editor Nic Robertson<\/a> is in seoul, south korea. Nic, we are now ten days out from this historic summit if the current plan holds. Where you are standing there in south korea, what are they saying . How do they view this upcoming summit . Reporter sure, look, i think the South Koreans<\/a> are very clear very keen and its been clear from the beginning, to get to some talk in between President Trump<\/a> and kim jongun. Theyre saying that theyre watching this carefully. Theyre saying that dont let what north korea has done in the past be a prejudge of what north korea may do this time. Of course, everyone knows that north koreas lied in the past and a lot of people are saying they could lie again. So, the South Koreans<\/a> really wanted to want to be more optimistic, really sort of putting, if you will, as much pressure as they can bring to bear, if any, on the white house to make a go of this, to have this meeting as President Trump<\/a> has said its just kind of getting to know you at first. But americas other allies in this region, particularly japan, that really feels wrongfooted by all of this. Theyre concerned. Theyre saying, look, kim jongun shouldnt get to the table with President Trump<\/a> just for this kind of meeting. He should be delivering something, the complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization should be, you know, on the table before they get going, and we should bring into this chemical weapons, biological weapons, north koreas ballistic missiles, so japan really feels that President Trump<\/a> is getting ahead of himself, that hes giving in too much, giving too much ground here. Theyre also concerned about what President Trump<\/a> is saying about sanctions. You know, President Trump<\/a> has said, look, ive got lots of other sanctions i could put on, but while north koreas talking nicely, and well remember just a week ago he said they werent while theyre talking nicely, im not going to do that. He said i wont use that expression, maximum pressure. So, japan feels confused. The defense minister today was saying, well, what is this . Is it maximum pressure or are there sanctions . Where do we really stand on this . So, you know, confusion, concern, if youre japan. Hope, i think, if youre south korea right now. All right, Nic Robertson<\/a>, thanks for the update. What about the results, the lasting Global Impact<\/a> that could come from this summit if it really happens. Elise labott is with us now and also joining us, terry of the strategic and International Studies<\/a> and who used to be the cias point person for all things korea. Elise, first, looking forward to this summit, ten days from now, logistics matter, and there are a lot of logistics to tend to. What are those challenges right now . Reporter well, anything from protocol, whos going to sit where, how theyre going to walk in, who gets there first, all those little details, but then theres also everything from whether theres going to going to be an agreement, what theyre going to sign, the handshake. There are all these little details, but those can be worked out. I think whats really important is that theyre able to work out something for a summit. I mean, there was an article this morning in the Washington Post<\/a> about how whos going to pay for the North Koreans<\/a>, because they are demanding that someone pay for their hotel and clearly, they dont want the u. S. To do so, so theres all those Little Things<\/a>, but i think, again, the substance of the summit, whether theyre going to be able to have any kind of agreement, even if its a road map for better relations, a road map for further negotiations, i think thats really the main thing that they need to nail down, and they really dont have any specifics on that yet. What are the chances of something very substantial coming from this summit . Number one, of course, being denuclearization, which is what the administration keeps saying is the end game. Im not sure about very substantial. Its still unclear that north korea is going to put denuclearization as we define it, complete, irreversible denuclearization of the north Nuclear Program<\/a> because they always defined denuclearization as something else, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula<\/a> if the regimes security is guaranteed, if the u. S. Hostile policy ends, and of course what des that mean . End of u. S. South Korea Alliance<\/a> commitment, troop presence in south korea, and extended Nuclear Umbrella<\/a> that we have over south korea. Its very unclear that we have bridged this gap and that north koreas actually willing to talk about complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of their Nuclear Program<\/a>. There are a lot of reasons, elise, to be skeptical because the u. S. Has been down this road with north korea before, and we know north korea has not kept up its end of the deal when a deal was struck. Whats different this time . Reporter i think whats different this time is you have the two leaders involved. Now, that could be a blessing and a curse, because as we know, these things usually come from the bottom up. Negotiators meet for weeks, if not months, before a summit like this, and then the leaders show up and shake hands and sign the agreement. Thats not happening this time, and so the leaders are really coming together with just the idea of wanting to, as trump said, get to know you plus, but i think the engagement of the two leaders and wanting to move this forward, i think, is the best thing that they have going for now, but as sue mi said, i think its difficult when north korea really hasnt agreed to the basic idea of what the u. S. Wa wanted. Remember, just a few days ago, top u. S. Officials were saying we want to see something historic from the north, something theyve never done before, before this even summit took place. That was the condition. Now, the challenge for President Trump<\/a>, i think, is to not get into this kind of typical north korean vortex, getting sucked into the idea that north korea will try and drag this out while giving away as little as possible and getting as many concessions from the u. S. Sue mi, i imagine its a bit of playing chess going on between, you know, whats beginning on within the u. S. Administration and the north korean leadership there. Given mike pompeo has had such a significant role up to this point with meeting directly with kim jongun, meeting with the north korean spy master who was just in the u. S. , who delivered that letter in the oval office, he has a huge intelligence background. He was the former director of the cia before he took on this new role as secretary of state. Is that going to work in the u. S. s favor . Well, whether it does or not, he is were using that intelligence channel, right . Hes using people from the cia, like andrew kim, who went with him to new york to meet im just thinking, hes reading the North Koreans<\/a> in the process of these facetoface meetings. Whats interesting is cia guys are usually not part of the diplomacy channel, and they are involved in this. But i do have faith in my former colleagues because they are very cleareyed about north korea, and they know north korea quite well. But whats interesting is that President Trump<\/a> did walk back from this very high expectation that he did set before. He has changed tune now. Hes talking about phase approach, meeting with kim jongun. So hes now lowered expectation, so well see what happens in this when they actually sit down and meet each other. Yes. Ladies, thank you both, elise, sue mi, appreciate it. We get access inside a Migrant Detention Center<\/a> in california and talk to two mothers separated from their children for over a month now. Their story ahead. If you had any lingering doubts about the performance. Of lexus hybrids, this should clear the air. Now comparably priced to the rest of the lineup. Experience amazing at your lexus dealer. If you have moderate to severe or psoriatic arthritis, Little Things<\/a> can be a big deal. Thats why theres otezla. Otezla is not an injection or a cream. Its a pill that treats differently. For psoriasis, 75 clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. And for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. And the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. Dont use if youre allergic to otezla. Otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Tell your doctor if these occur. Otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. Tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Otezla. Show more of you. Join tmobile. And get netflix included for the whole family. So you can get lost in space in your own backyard. Or get pumped up for your grand entrance. Only tmobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. Get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. And right now at tmobile, buy one Samsung Galaxy<\/a> s9 and get one free. My dai need my blood sugar ito stay in control. En. So i asked about tresiba\u00ae. Tresiba\u00ae ready tresiba\u00ae is a oncedaily, longacting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. I need to shave my a1c. Tresiba\u00ae ready tresiba\u00ae works like my bodys insulin. Releases slow and steady. Providing powerful a1c reduction. My week . Hectic. My weekends . My time. Tresiba\u00ae ready i can take tresiba\u00ae any time of day. So if i sleep in, and delay my dose, i take it as soon as i can, as long as theres at least eight hours between doses. renee once in use, it lasts eight weeks with or without refrigeration, twice as long as the lantus\u00ae pen. announcer tresiba\u00ae is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. Dont use tresiba\u00ae to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. Dont share needles or insulin pens. Dont reuse needles. The most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. Check your blood sugar. Low blood sugar can be serious and may be lifethreatening. Injection site reactions may occur. Tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. Taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba\u00ae, may cause serious side effects like heart failure. Your insulin dose shouldnt be changed without asking your prescriber. Get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness, or confusion. Ask your Health Care Provider<\/a> if youre tresiba\u00ae ready. Covered by most insurance and medicare plans. Tresiba\u00ae ready migrants are coming across the southern border. Children and their parents are being separated. The Trump Administration<\/a> threatened this. Now weve confirmed it is happening. Parents are getting their children taken away from them. They dont know where they are. Our gary tuckman reports. Reporter these two honduran women crossed into the United States<\/a> and asked for asylum because of violence at home. They are now being held in a california immigration detention center, but something is missing. Their children, who traveled with them. Marbel just turned 35 years old. Immigration officials separated her from her 8yearold son, jerry, right after they crossed the border together. He has since been sent across the country to a government facility in new york state. Are you scared . Reporter she tells me, yes, im scared, because they took him from me. If i had him with me, i wouldnt have any fears. Olga is 31 years old. Her four children, ranged from 8 to 17, have also been sent to a government facility in new york. She says when her three daughters and son were separated from her, she didnt know wt was going on. Olga says, im not sure why they did that. They never let me say goodbye. They didnt tell me anything. The lawyers for both mothers dont want the womens last names used and dont want some details from their cases being revealed because they feel it could be used against them. The mothers tell us they did not have the faintest clue that their children could be taken away from them. Marbel told us, for me, it was really hard when immigration took him away from me because my son was crying and didnt want to be taken away, and they didnt want to listen. For around two weeks, the mothers say they did not know where their children were. Even now, theyve been separated from their children for over a month. They say phone contact is infrequent. My kids have never been separated from me, says olga. My son told me on the phone he misses me and when am i going to be with them again. I told him i dont know. The immigration attorney for the two women says she doesnt know either. So its unknown how long these mothers are going to be separated from their children. Theyre in proceedings and their children are in proceedings. In two different court. Reporter neither woman had a cell phone when they left honduras, so not only do they is not have their children, marbel only has one picture of her son, olga has no pictures. I want to live a good life with my kids, says olga, and for them to have a good future. Not the same as ive had. Marbel tells us, i love him smushl, i never thought id bring him to have him separated from me. If i would have known, i wouldnt have brought him. I just wish him to be together with me. After our interviews, both women go back to their cells with no idea whatsoever what will happen to their lives or the lives of their children. Gary tuchman, cnn, california. Y . Head to the sears memorial day event. Up to 40 percent off appliances. 52 off this kenmore refrigerator. 50 percent off kenmore elite laundry pairs. Find your new appliance at the sears memorial day event. But their nutritional needs remain instinctual. Thats why theres purina one true instinct. Real meat 1. A different breed of natural nutrition. Purina one true instinct. Now, try new purina one true instinct treats. Are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool . Try zyrtec\u00ae. Its starts working hard at hour one. And works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. Stick with zyrtec\u00ae and muddle no more\u00ae. Im allbusiness when i, travel. Even when i travel. For leisure. So i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle without starting any conversations or paying any upcharges. What can i say . Control suits me. Go national. Go like a pro. Olay regenerist shatters the competition. Hydrating skin better than prestige creams costing over 100, 200, and even 400. For skin that looks younger than it should. Fact check this ad in good housekeeping. Olay regenerist. Ageless. I thought after sandy hook, where 20 six and seven year olds were slain, this would never happen again. It has happened more than 200 times in 5 years. Dianne feinstein and a new generation are leading the fight to pass a new assault weapons ban. Say no to the nra and yes to commonsense gun laws. California values senator Dianne Feinstein<\/a> during his medical training in peru, this weeks cnn hero noticed Sick Children<\/a> sleeping on hospital floors waiting for treatment. He decided to help. The journey, its very difficult. They come here and its very expensive to stay here. They dont have enough money to continue their treatment. Sometimes families, they have to sell everything they have. They feel helpless. So i decided to do something for them. I want them to know that they are not alone. That smile is just priceless. To check out the program, head to cnnheros. Com and you can also nominate someone you think should be a cnn hero. Im ana cabrera in new york. Ill be back here at 8 00 p. M. In the cnn newsroom. Smerconish is next. Prepare for your demise, mr. Billingsley do your worst, doctor. I will. But first, a little presentation. Hijacking earths Geothermal Energy<\/a> supply. Phase 1. Choosing the right drill bit. As long as evil villains reveal their plans, you can count on geico saving folks money. Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. But as it grew bigger and bigger,ness. It took a whole lot more. Thats why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. With it, i earn unlimited 2 cash back on everything i buy. Everything. And that 2 cash back adds up to thousands of dollars each year. So i can keep growing my business in big leaps whats in your wallet . You turned a family recipeher, into a brewing empire before prohibition took it all away. I promised our family id find your lost recipe. By tracing our history on ancestry, i found the one person who still had it. Now, im brewing our legacy back to life. Im david thieme, and this is my ancestry story. Now with 100 million family trees, find your story. Get started for free at ancestry. Com. No bars. Oh no when i got unlimited, they told me they were all the same. Well, verizon has the largest, mostreliable 4g lte network in america. Honey, what if it was just us out here . Yeah well, i guess, uh, didnt think about that. Verizon did. vo go with the best. Starting at 40 for four lines. Ive been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. I bet im the first blade maker youve ever met. Theres a lot of innovation that goes into making our thinnest longest lasting blades on the market. Precision machinery and highquality materials from around the world. Nobody else even comes close. Its about delivering a more comfortable shave every time. Invented in boston, made and sold around the world. Now starting at 7. 99. Gillette. The best a man can get. Im a small business, but i have. Big dreams. And big plans. So how do i make the efforts of 8 employees. Feel like 50 . How can i share new plans virtually . How can i download an efile . Virtual tours . Zipfile . Really big files . In seconds, not minutes. Just like that. Like everything. The answer is simple. Ill do what ive always done. Dream more, dream faster, and above all. Now, ill dream gig. Now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. Comcast, building americas largest gigspeed network. Captions by vitac www. Vitac. Com","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia903104.us.archive.org\/2\/items\/CNNW_20180602_210000_CNN_Newsroom_With_Ana_Cabrera\/CNNW_20180602_210000_CNN_Newsroom_With_Ana_Cabrera.thumbs\/CNNW_20180602_210000_CNN_Newsroom_With_Ana_Cabrera_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}