Transcripts For CNNW Anderson Cooper 360 20190314 : vimarsan

According to Committee Chairman jerry nadler, a democrat, whitaker talked about what the president said to him in the wake of Michael Cohens guilty plea about his former fixer as well as the Southern District of new yorks investigation of cohen and the man known as individual one in court documents, also known as the president. However, the Top Republican congressman, doug collins, said thats not what whitaker said. Discussing either of those things, especially with the man nominally in charge of them, raises questions whether the president was trying to exert influence, perhaps unlawfully. Whitaker refused to discuss what, if anything, the president said to him. He did address one specific question. Did the president lash out at you after Michael Cohens guilty plea for lying to congress about a Trump Organization building a tower in moscow . The president specifically tweeted that he had not lashed out. Im asking you, mr. Whitaker, did the president lash out at you . Im not asking what he treated. I dont have confidence in the veracity of the tweet. Im asking you under oath. Congressman, that is based on unsubstantiated sir, answer the question yes or no. Did he lash out to you about the guilty plea . No, he did not. According to the former acting attorney general, President Trump did not quote lash out at him. The real question is what did the president say . And thats what tonights new reporting could shed light on. I say could because its in question. Cnn justice correspondent lara jarrett starts us off. So what exactly did whitaker say today and again, according to chairman nadlers accounting of events . Well anderson, nadler said that whitaker didnt deny that the president called him to discuss the case of his former lawyer Michael Cohen and other personnel decisions in the Southern District of new york. A little bit vague there about what exactly was discussed. And nadler said that whitaker was involved in conversations about the recuse of a of u. S. Attorney Jeffrey Berman in the Southern District of new york and whether brighters there went too far in pursuing the Campaign Finance case against cohen. Why does this matter, now that whitaker is gone . As you said, it goes to the question of whether the president was trying to put his thumb on the scale in some way or influence the investigations into cohen where he was directly implicated and in some cases whitaker was on the receiving end of these calls and maybe the only one who really knows what happened. So the Ranking Member on the committee, congressman doug collins, republican, he disputes almost the entirety of this account, correct . Thats right. We have two diametrically opposed versions. Collins says nadlers reading into whitakers testimony, pushed back on nadlers characterization of their interview, downplaying what whitaker told the committee, saying theres simply no evidence whitaker discussed the cohen case with the president. But interestingly, my colleagues manu raju and others on the hill thought some of the Campaign Finance charges against cohen were, quote, specious, pointing to the failed effort to prosecute former senator john edwards on similar charges. And this is according to gop aides who were in the room, anderson. I dont quite understand how nadler and the democrat and the republican can have such diametrically opposed accounting of what whitaker actually said and the meaning of it. Is the transcript going to be released . Is there any way to tell what whitaker actually said . Well, unfortunately for us, this was behind closed doors today. There is no transcript. So like most things in life, it will come down to credibility determination and whose side you believe and which one sounds more like the facts. All right. Laura jarret, thanks. Youll recall the question of whether the president asked him acting attorney general to take action against the Southern District. It has come up before. Such as this moment not long after whitakers testimony. Did you ask acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker to change the leadership of the investigation into your former personal attorney Michael Cohen . No. Not at all. I dont know who gave you that that is more fake news. A lot of there is a lot of fake news out there. So does the president still believe that . Seeing as Kaitlan Collins joins us now from the white house. What is the white house saying about this . So far, no official statement from the white house about this. But expect them to point to what the republican in the room is saying about all of this. His version of events as just laid out downplaying what chairman nadler described this as saying it is not nefarious and whitaker didnt reveal anything new about his conversations with the president saying that he only had conversations with staff about the cohen probe. But of course because there is no transcript it is going to be one of those things where it is a he said he said and so the white house could use the talking points from doug collins, the republican, and be able to say without them being checked against any transcript of what Matt Whitaker actually said. And according to reporting, the president was unhappy that whitaker had to testify in front of congress in the first place. Reporter oh, yeah. He did not like seeing Matt Whitaker getting grilled by the democrats on that committee. And he liked doug collins in his view of things pointed out what he said was absurd testimony he was having to give and the president also didnt like his relationship with Matt Whitaker coming under such scrutiny. Now whitaker would not answer questions about the president lashing out at him, only pointing to the president s tweet. Though of course we know from our reporting that that happened not just once, but twice when the president was rattled by the developments in the Michael Cohen probe in new york. Kaitlan collins from the white house. Thank you very much. I want to get reaction from the leading voice on the Senate Judiciary committee senator Richard Blumenthal of connecticut joins me. Senator, what do you make of this . If chairman nadlers account is correct, whitaker did not deny the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case, what does that say to you . What it says to me is that the president was attempting to influence potentially that investigation in new york where he was an unindicted coconspirator, in effect. He was called individual number one, but clearly he was that person in a possible Campaign Finance conspiracy involving Michael Cohen. The only way to really reconcile these two accounts from collins and nadler is to take an earlier version from republican counsel who said that whitaker insisted he could not remember any conversation with the president. Perhaps congressman collins means by do not remember, that in effect he denied those conversations. But chairman nadler has been very clear, he said there was a conversation as indicated by the fact that whitaker did not deny it. So the is it clear to you, though, what exactly is being alleged okay, is nadler saying he didnt deny there was a conversation, the idea that the president was talking about personnel issues in the Southern District of new york, which i assume the biggest personnel issue is the fact that the recusal by the person that he appointed to head the Southern District of new york related to the cohen case i guess is there any way to find out what was said in that meeting . Is it possible the transcript should be released or would be released . The transcript should be released. Just like ive insisted that the entire Mueller Report should be released. And very possibly Matt Whitaker should be brought back before the committee in public under oath. Chairman nadler is a very careful and meticulous attorney. And he uses words carefully. There is a lot of smoke here. Which indicates fire. More questions than answers. And very likely there needs to be a release of this transcript, but also more testimony to establish exactly what whitaker is saying. Because he seemingly is playing both sides of this street in a very disingenuous way. So even if the president did call whitaker and talked about the cohen case, if no action was actually taken by whitaker, is there any issue in terms of legality of it . There is very definitely an issue. If the president called the acting attorney general of the United States about an Ongoing Investigation of him in the Southern District of new york, where he was named as in effect an unindicted coconspirator, any conversation would be wildly improper. And evidence of potential obstruction of justice. Even if nothing came of it in terms of whitaker acting. Clearly the president s intent in calling whitaker was to influence the outcome. Clearly that kind of attempt, whether it produced action on whitakers part, was improper, verging on outright obstruction of justice. So this report is potentially explosive. Whitaker has denied very specifically in his Opening Statement in public that kind of conversation. But even some backtracking indicates that perhaps there was such a conversation and whitaker should remember it. What is the law in between the president doing something as you say improper, and doing something illegal, attempting to obstruct justice . Obviously there is many things that may be improper and unseemly which are not actually illegal. Key question, we need to know more facts. Before we reach a conclusion, we need to know what the president s actual words were and what his intent was, to be gleaned from those words. We need to know whether whitaker took any action. How whitaker interpreted it. Were not likely to know those facts in the next 24 hours. The only way to really obtain them is to have whitaker back and chairman nadler has been pursuing very assiduously and meticulously an investigation that has historic consequences. The president s potential conversations with whitaker indicate that hes treating the department of justice like his own personal attorneys. And the American Public has a right to wonder why is whitaker so vague and disingenuous if there is nothing to hide. Senator blumenthal. I appreciate it, thank you very much. Thank you. Joining us now is neal cadill who was solicitor general during the Obama Administration and cnn chief analyst Jeffrey Toobin and cnn political analyst and usa today columnist Kirsten Powers. Jeff, chairman nadler saying whitaker did not deny the president called him to discuss the cohen case. A nondenial is not the same thing as a confirmation, is it . Its not, but there really is a very simple solution here. And senator blumenthal mentioned it, which is just bring him back. Bring him back for public testimony and have him spell out in public what went on in this conversation or conversations plurg with the president about the cohen investigation in the Southern District. Because this couldnt be more important. Remember, Richard Nixon was forced out of office because on june 23rd, 1972, the socalled smoking gun tape, he was caught using the cia to tell the fbi to stop investigating watergate. So the issue of the president controlling the department of justice regarding investigations of himself is both historically and legally very important. Neal, if this conversation did happen, and it was just a conversation and it was the president venting or saying gosh, i think what is happening to Michael Cohen is i think theyre going too far in the Southern District but nothing came of it, as in no action took place, does that then, besides perhaps being inappropriate, does that is that illegal . Yes. Still devastating for the president both criminally and as a matter of politically. So it would be one thing anderson if the president were having that conversation with you and going in and criticizing criticizing the Southern District investigation and the like. But here hes doing it to his handpicked lackey, this guy Matthew Whitaker who is the most unqualified person to ever serve as attorney general in the history of the United States, who was put in there for one reason, one qualification, is hes gone on your network and dissed the Mueller Probe and stuff like that. So when he has that conversation, its pretty obvious whats going on at that point. This isnt venting to you or Something Like that. The criminal intent there could very well be met because it doesnt require completion, it just requires an attempt to try and do something that is illegal. Neal, do you think hes the most unqualified person to ever head the department of justice in the entire history of the United States . Oh, yes. And i think even donald trump agrees, which is why he didnt try to put him up for a nomination and put barr in. Yeah. This person is really he really had one qualification and were seeing it play out in the conversation today with chairman nadler. Kirsten in fairness we should point out go ahead, jeff. We should point out that Robert Kennedy was close in terms of unqualified. He turned out to be a good attorney general, but whitaker and kennedy were close in terms of qualifications. Okay. Kirsten, here we are again. Two heads of the committee, the democrat and republican, with two directly opposite versions of what happened. Its and this makes me nervous because we dont really know what happened or what was said. Right. Well, the thing is that congressman nadler is saying that he pressed him and he wasnt answering the question. So that is not the same thing as necessarily giving an answer. In the public testimony he was basically saying he wasnt going to talk about conversations that he had with the president. And so i think him not answering shouldnt be construed as somehow giving information. I do think it is true that he isnt seen as being probably the most trustworthy person in the sense that he was hired clearly as a trump loyalist who wasnt qualified for the job. And so it is not hard to believe that maybe he was doing the president s bidding here. But you have the ranking republican member saying explicitly that this didnt happen. And it is hard to square that. Unless he somehow really is playing with the language, but hes he said very clearly, that this didnt happen. That he, in fact, said he did not have any conversations with the president about cohen at all. And jeff, what whitaker denied under oath in his prior testimony, that the president lashed out at him, and he denied that, it doesnt exactly give him much cover of what constitutes lashing out could be subjective and it was that term was used in a report that he was basically denying. Right. And the notion that Matthew Whitaker where it came out that he doesnt exactly remember what went on in this conversation. You know what it is when you talk to the president of the United States and youre the attorney general, especially if you are the attorney general for just a few weeks. It is a big deal. It is a big deal in your entire life. And the idea that Matthew Whitaker, well i dont know, we were talking and i dont remember. That is absurd. The question is would he agree to answer the question if he came back. This seems to me of significant importance that the House Committee could go to court and try to find him in contempt if he tried to invoke executive privilege. Because this is exactly the kind of conversation that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. The abuse of the justice department. This is something that the congress should investigate. And not rely on like he said he said on a closeddoor meeting. Neal, isnt executive privilege, the white house has to invoke not not Matthew Whitaker . Yes. The white house is the only individual entity that can invoke it and here i do think there is a problem because, anderson, whitaker didnt just previously testify in congress that the president didnt lash out, he also testified in response to a question of did the white house reach out to you in some way to express dissatisfaction . Answer, no. So whitaker didnt have any problem remembering that just a month ago, even less than a month ago. Now all of a sudden hes got these memory deficits. And i 100 agree with Jeffrey Toobin and i remember every one conversation with the attorney general and they are big deals general every day, i remember every conversation, they are big deals. And dollars to donuts, i remember every conversation with the president of the United States. So this idea that he just kind of forgets is really, really tough. Stand by, everybody. I want to take a quick break. There is more coming up. Well look at Committee Chairman<\/a> jerry nadler, a democrat, whitaker talked about what the president said to him in the wake of Michael Cohens<\/a> guilty plea about his former fixer as well as the Southern District<\/a> of new yorks investigation of cohen and the man known as individual one in court documents, also known as the president. However, the Top Republican<\/a> congressman, doug collins, said thats not what whitaker said. Discussing either of those things, especially with the man nominally in charge of them, raises questions whether the president was trying to exert influence, perhaps unlawfully. Whitaker refused to discuss what, if anything, the president said to him. He did address one specific question. Did the president lash out at you after Michael Cohens<\/a> guilty plea for lying to congress about a Trump Organization<\/a> building a tower in moscow . The president specifically tweeted that he had not lashed out. Im asking you, mr. Whitaker, did the president lash out at you . Im not asking what he treated. I dont have confidence in the veracity of the tweet. Im asking you under oath. Congressman, that is based on unsubstantiated sir, answer the question yes or no. Did he lash out to you about the guilty plea . No, he did not. According to the former acting attorney general, President Trump<\/a> did not quote lash out at him. The real question is what did the president say . And thats what tonights new reporting could shed light on. I say could because its in question. Cnn justice correspondent lara jarrett starts us off. So what exactly did whitaker say today and again, according to chairman nadlers accounting of events . Well anderson, nadler said that whitaker didnt deny that the president called him to discuss the case of his former lawyer Michael Cohen<\/a> and other personnel decisions in the Southern District<\/a> of new york. A little bit vague there about what exactly was discussed. And nadler said that whitaker was involved in conversations about the recuse of a of u. S. Attorney Jeffrey Berman<\/a> in the Southern District<\/a> of new york and whether brighters there went too far in pursuing the Campaign Finance<\/a> case against cohen. Why does this matter, now that whitaker is gone . As you said, it goes to the question of whether the president was trying to put his thumb on the scale in some way or influence the investigations into cohen where he was directly implicated and in some cases whitaker was on the receiving end of these calls and maybe the only one who really knows what happened. So the Ranking Member<\/a> on the committee, congressman doug collins, republican, he disputes almost the entirety of this account, correct . Thats right. We have two diametrically opposed versions. Collins says nadlers reading into whitakers testimony, pushed back on nadlers characterization of their interview, downplaying what whitaker told the committee, saying theres simply no evidence whitaker discussed the cohen case with the president. But interestingly, my colleagues manu raju and others on the hill thought some of the Campaign Finance<\/a> charges against cohen were, quote, specious, pointing to the failed effort to prosecute former senator john edwards on similar charges. And this is according to gop aides who were in the room, anderson. I dont quite understand how nadler and the democrat and the republican can have such diametrically opposed accounting of what whitaker actually said and the meaning of it. Is the transcript going to be released . Is there any way to tell what whitaker actually said . Well, unfortunately for us, this was behind closed doors today. There is no transcript. So like most things in life, it will come down to credibility determination and whose side you believe and which one sounds more like the facts. All right. Laura jarret, thanks. Youll recall the question of whether the president asked him acting attorney general to take action against the Southern District<\/a>. It has come up before. Such as this moment not long after whitakers testimony. Did you ask acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker<\/a> to change the leadership of the investigation into your former personal attorney Michael Cohen<\/a> . No. Not at all. I dont know who gave you that that is more fake news. A lot of there is a lot of fake news out there. So does the president still believe that . Seeing as Kaitlan Collins<\/a> joins us now from the white house. What is the white house saying about this . So far, no official statement from the white house about this. But expect them to point to what the republican in the room is saying about all of this. His version of events as just laid out downplaying what chairman nadler described this as saying it is not nefarious and whitaker didnt reveal anything new about his conversations with the president saying that he only had conversations with staff about the cohen probe. But of course because there is no transcript it is going to be one of those things where it is a he said he said and so the white house could use the talking points from doug collins, the republican, and be able to say without them being checked against any transcript of what Matt Whitaker<\/a> actually said. And according to reporting, the president was unhappy that whitaker had to testify in front of congress in the first place. Reporter oh, yeah. He did not like seeing Matt Whitaker<\/a> getting grilled by the democrats on that committee. And he liked doug collins in his view of things pointed out what he said was absurd testimony he was having to give and the president also didnt like his relationship with Matt Whitaker<\/a> coming under such scrutiny. Now whitaker would not answer questions about the president lashing out at him, only pointing to the president s tweet. Though of course we know from our reporting that that happened not just once, but twice when the president was rattled by the developments in the Michael Cohen<\/a> probe in new york. Kaitlan collins from the white house. Thank you very much. I want to get reaction from the leading voice on the Senate Judiciary<\/a> committee senator Richard Blumenthal<\/a> of connecticut joins me. Senator, what do you make of this . If chairman nadlers account is correct, whitaker did not deny the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen<\/a> case, what does that say to you . What it says to me is that the president was attempting to influence potentially that investigation in new york where he was an unindicted coconspirator, in effect. He was called individual number one, but clearly he was that person in a possible Campaign Finance<\/a> conspiracy involving Michael Cohen<\/a>. The only way to really reconcile these two accounts from collins and nadler is to take an earlier version from republican counsel who said that whitaker insisted he could not remember any conversation with the president. Perhaps congressman collins means by do not remember, that in effect he denied those conversations. But chairman nadler has been very clear, he said there was a conversation as indicated by the fact that whitaker did not deny it. So the is it clear to you, though, what exactly is being alleged okay, is nadler saying he didnt deny there was a conversation, the idea that the president was talking about personnel issues in the Southern District<\/a> of new york, which i assume the biggest personnel issue is the fact that the recusal by the person that he appointed to head the Southern District<\/a> of new york related to the cohen case i guess is there any way to find out what was said in that meeting . Is it possible the transcript should be released or would be released . The transcript should be released. Just like ive insisted that the entire Mueller Report<\/a> should be released. And very possibly Matt Whitaker<\/a> should be brought back before the committee in public under oath. Chairman nadler is a very careful and meticulous attorney. And he uses words carefully. There is a lot of smoke here. Which indicates fire. More questions than answers. And very likely there needs to be a release of this transcript, but also more testimony to establish exactly what whitaker is saying. Because he seemingly is playing both sides of this street in a very disingenuous way. So even if the president did call whitaker and talked about the cohen case, if no action was actually taken by whitaker, is there any issue in terms of legality of it . There is very definitely an issue. If the president called the acting attorney general of the United States<\/a> about an Ongoing Investigation<\/a> of him in the Southern District<\/a> of new york, where he was named as in effect an unindicted coconspirator, any conversation would be wildly improper. And evidence of potential obstruction of justice. Even if nothing came of it in terms of whitaker acting. Clearly the president s intent in calling whitaker was to influence the outcome. Clearly that kind of attempt, whether it produced action on whitakers part, was improper, verging on outright obstruction of justice. So this report is potentially explosive. Whitaker has denied very specifically in his Opening Statement<\/a> in public that kind of conversation. But even some backtracking indicates that perhaps there was such a conversation and whitaker should remember it. What is the law in between the president doing something as you say improper, and doing something illegal, attempting to obstruct justice . Obviously there is many things that may be improper and unseemly which are not actually illegal. Key question, we need to know more facts. Before we reach a conclusion, we need to know what the president s actual words were and what his intent was, to be gleaned from those words. We need to know whether whitaker took any action. How whitaker interpreted it. Were not likely to know those facts in the next 24 hours. The only way to really obtain them is to have whitaker back and chairman nadler has been pursuing very assiduously and meticulously an investigation that has historic consequences. The president s potential conversations with whitaker indicate that hes treating the department of justice like his own personal attorneys. And the American Public<\/a> has a right to wonder why is whitaker so vague and disingenuous if there is nothing to hide. Senator blumenthal. I appreciate it, thank you very much. Thank you. Joining us now is neal cadill who was solicitor general during the Obama Administration<\/a> and cnn chief analyst Jeffrey Toobin<\/a> and cnn political analyst and usa today columnist Kirsten Powers<\/a>. Jeff, chairman nadler saying whitaker did not deny the president called him to discuss the cohen case. A nondenial is not the same thing as a confirmation, is it . Its not, but there really is a very simple solution here. And senator blumenthal mentioned it, which is just bring him back. Bring him back for public testimony and have him spell out in public what went on in this conversation or conversations plurg with the president about the cohen investigation in the Southern District<\/a>. Because this couldnt be more important. Remember, Richard Nixon<\/a> was forced out of office because on june 23rd, 1972, the socalled smoking gun tape, he was caught using the cia to tell the fbi to stop investigating watergate. So the issue of the president controlling the department of justice regarding investigations of himself is both historically and legally very important. Neal, if this conversation did happen, and it was just a conversation and it was the president venting or saying gosh, i think what is happening to Michael Cohen<\/a> is i think theyre going too far in the Southern District<\/a> but nothing came of it, as in no action took place, does that then, besides perhaps being inappropriate, does that is that illegal . Yes. Still devastating for the president both criminally and as a matter of politically. So it would be one thing anderson if the president were having that conversation with you and going in and criticizing criticizing the Southern District<\/a> investigation and the like. But here hes doing it to his handpicked lackey, this guy Matthew Whitaker<\/a> who is the most unqualified person to ever serve as attorney general in the history of the United States<\/a>, who was put in there for one reason, one qualification, is hes gone on your network and dissed the Mueller Probe<\/a> and stuff like that. So when he has that conversation, its pretty obvious whats going on at that point. This isnt venting to you or Something Like<\/a> that. The criminal intent there could very well be met because it doesnt require completion, it just requires an attempt to try and do something that is illegal. Neal, do you think hes the most unqualified person to ever head the department of justice in the entire history of the United States<\/a> . Oh, yes. And i think even donald trump agrees, which is why he didnt try to put him up for a nomination and put barr in. Yeah. This person is really he really had one qualification and were seeing it play out in the conversation today with chairman nadler. Kirsten in fairness we should point out go ahead, jeff. We should point out that Robert Kennedy<\/a> was close in terms of unqualified. He turned out to be a good attorney general, but whitaker and kennedy were close in terms of qualifications. Okay. Kirsten, here we are again. Two heads of the committee, the democrat and republican, with two directly opposite versions of what happened. Its and this makes me nervous because we dont really know what happened or what was said. Right. Well, the thing is that congressman nadler is saying that he pressed him and he wasnt answering the question. So that is not the same thing as necessarily giving an answer. In the public testimony he was basically saying he wasnt going to talk about conversations that he had with the president. And so i think him not answering shouldnt be construed as somehow giving information. I do think it is true that he isnt seen as being probably the most trustworthy person in the sense that he was hired clearly as a trump loyalist who wasnt qualified for the job. And so it is not hard to believe that maybe he was doing the president s bidding here. But you have the ranking republican member saying explicitly that this didnt happen. And it is hard to square that. Unless he somehow really is playing with the language, but hes he said very clearly, that this didnt happen. That he, in fact, said he did not have any conversations with the president about cohen at all. And jeff, what whitaker denied under oath in his prior testimony, that the president lashed out at him, and he denied that, it doesnt exactly give him much cover of what constitutes lashing out could be subjective and it was that term was used in a report that he was basically denying. Right. And the notion that Matthew Whitaker<\/a> where it came out that he doesnt exactly remember what went on in this conversation. You know what it is when you talk to the president of the United States<\/a> and youre the attorney general, especially if you are the attorney general for just a few weeks. It is a big deal. It is a big deal in your entire life. And the idea that Matthew Whitaker<\/a>, well i dont know, we were talking and i dont remember. That is absurd. The question is would he agree to answer the question if he came back. This seems to me of significant importance that the House Committee<\/a> could go to court and try to find him in contempt if he tried to invoke executive privilege. Because this is exactly the kind of conversation that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon<\/a>. The abuse of the justice department. This is something that the congress should investigate. And not rely on like he said he said on a closeddoor meeting. Neal, isnt executive privilege, the white house has to invoke not not Matthew Whitaker<\/a> . Yes. The white house is the only individual entity that can invoke it and here i do think there is a problem because, anderson, whitaker didnt just previously testify in congress that the president didnt lash out, he also testified in response to a question of did the white house reach out to you in some way to express dissatisfaction . Answer, no. So whitaker didnt have any problem remembering that just a month ago, even less than a month ago. Now all of a sudden hes got these memory deficits. And i 100 agree with Jeffrey Toobin<\/a> and i remember every one conversation with the attorney general and they are big deals general every day, i remember every conversation, they are big deals. And dollars to donuts, i remember every conversation with the president of the United States<\/a>. So this idea that he just kind of forgets is really, really tough. Stand by, everybody. I want to take a quick break. There is more coming up. Well look at Paul Manaforts<\/a> sentencing today. His additional prison time. What it might mean for the ongoing Mueller Investigation<\/a> and the new charges hes facing tonight and why they may be so important just in terms of a potential president ial pardon on the federal charges because these are state charges. Also tonight, exclusive details on an email obtained by cnn that seemed to promise Michael Cohen<\/a> he could sleep well because he had friends in, quote, high places. The interpretation of that is now open according to where you stand. There is people denying it means what it sounds like it means. Well be right back. Steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco. Burn, now, his world explodes with flavor. Nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for allday allnight protection. Can you imagine 24hours without heartburn . Sure its like a morn ining spring more than half of our community have discovered their irish roots. Order ancestrydna, and find the surprises in you. Just 59 through march 18th. Get your kit today. Itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey. Along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. With chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. Chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, youll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. When you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix. You may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. Stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in. Behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life threatening allergic and skin reactions. Decrease alcohol use. Use caution driving or operating machinery. Tell your doctor if youve had Mental Health<\/a> problems. The most common side effect is nausea. Quit smoking slow turkey. Talk to your doctor about chantix. We humans are strange creatures. Other species avoid pain and struggle. We actually. Seek it out. Other species do difficult things because they have to. We do difficult things. Because we like to. We think its. Fun. Introducing the allnew 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. driver relax, its just a bug. Thats not a bug, thats not a bug burke hit and drone. Seen it, covered it. We know a thing or two because weve seen a thing or two. We are farmers. Bumpadum, bumbumbumbum you wouldnt accept an incomplete job from any one else. Why accept it from your allergy pills . Flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills dont. And all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. Flonase sensimist. Paul manafort, President Trump<\/a>s former campaign chairman, was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison and the second appearance before a federal court judge in as many weeks this time on obstruction and conspiracy. The federal judge, Amy Berman Jackson<\/a> sentenced him to an additional three and a half years as another judge in virginia sentenced him as you may remember to almost four years on a series of financial fraud charges. Then moments later, minutes later the Manhattan District Attorney<\/a> cyrus vance charged him with mortgage fraud, falsifying business records, and conspiracy. The question of course is what happens now . Back with our legal and political team, jeff toobin, Kirsten Powers<\/a>. First of all theres this waiting game right now for Robert Mueller<\/a> to finish up. Unclear when thats going to happen. There is reporting it would be two weeks ago and there was talk from the Trump Supporters<\/a> it would be a year ago. Who does it benefit this kind of waiting game . The president , so he can keep up his witch hunt attacks or democrats so they can keep open the question of conspiracy or collusion . Or does it benefit anybody . I do think it would be hard if the Mueller Report<\/a> came out and enough of it was released that people could feel like we were getting the full story and he didnt find anything in terms of collusion. I think obviously republicans would say, okay, were done with this, lets move on, and democrats might still want to continue to investigate. So in a sense, having it not come out probably, i would say, helps democrats more. But that said, im saying that under the assumption if they didnt find something. If they do find something, then obviously that would be very bad for the president if he found collusion. And jeff, muellers prosecution of manafort, that ended today because roger stone next on his docket, weve learned Michael Flynns<\/a> cooperation is still ongoing. Other than that, whats left to resolve other than delivering his report . Not much. Stuff we just dont know about . Well, the great open question is whether there are more charges to be filed. The roger stone trial is probably going to take place in the fall. It may be run largely by the u. S. Attorneys office in washington. There are the two indictments of the russian officials in connection with the hacking and social media stuff but those people will never show up for trial. So i dont think there is any trial there. So at least based on what we know, if there are no more indictments, and that is a big if, all that is left is the report. And we dont know if the report is going to be five pages or 500 pages. The regulation that neal played a big part in writing gives mueller and the attorney general a lot of flexibility here, and we dont know how how mueller and barr are going to exercise it. And neal, it is also been reported that the Mueller Probe<\/a> has been funded through september. Does that mean he might if it is still working on this probe all the way up until then . Maintaining a staff and keeping that there is more to come . Well, hes under no obligation to spend those funds, so he could close up shop earlier, but i think jeff is right to say there is a lot we dont know here and mueller has run a ship without any leaks. But the one thing we do know, which happened today, instead of thinking about the future, just think about the present for a moment. Here you have the president s numero uno, his top campaign official, going to jail now for seven and a half years. That doesnt happen. Look over American History<\/a> and i think you would find one president Whose Campaign<\/a> chair went to jail and that is not a good precedent for President Trump<\/a>. Which is mitchell who was nixons campaign chief. So this is a real devastating thing to think that our president put in charge of his campaign a guy going to jail for so long and the number two guy, rick gates, also going to jail. Kirsten and another fact go ahead, jeff. No, but go ahead, anderson, it is okay. Go ahead. Another fact. I like facts. Go ahead. Well, its that manafort is really over as far as the Mueller Investigation<\/a> is concerned. He tried to cooperate, it was a fiasco, he lied and wasnt so the idea that there may be something further with manafort in terms of cooperation or other evidence or other testimony, it is just not going to happen. So, yes, hes been sentenced to seven and a half years and people could agree or disagree about whether that is a good sentence, but hes just over as a witness in a case as far as federal court is concerned. But kirsten, there is the state now charges in new york which are fascinating and just from a political standpoint, im wondering how you think that plays. Because you could make the argument that republicans could point to that and or anybody could point though to that and say, well look, that is politically motivated and announced the charges right after the sentencing of manafort and it makes it pardonproof, if, in fact, hes found guilty in new york on state charges, that is not something that the president can pardon him for. How do you think it and the flip side is for people that want to see manafort spend more time in prison and not be pardoned, this gives them the likelihood that even if hes pardoned by the president , he will spend time in jail. Yeah, i mean, i think to a certain extent the lawyers could answer that better than me. Everything i know about the Southern District<\/a> of new york i learned on billions. So i it seems unlikely to me that good show. That they would do Something Like<\/a> that. But they would that this entire thing would be constructed and they would charge these crimes as i guess what republicans might be claiming happened, that it was some sort of politically motivated, and it doesnt seem that is how the law works but the lawyers here could speak more to that. And certainly they have the state authorities have been working on for a long time. Well talk about this more later. Neal, Jeffrey Toobin<\/a>, thank you, Kirsten Powers<\/a> as well. Coming up, did someone from the president ial orbit dangle the idea of a possible pardon in front of Michael Cohen<\/a> in april of last year right after cohens office was raided, after he was charged . Well have the details on an email cnn has obtained next. Whooo want to take your next vacation to new heights . Tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world like new york from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book Amazing Things<\/a> to do. And you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. So you can make your next trip. Monumental read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor this is moving day with the best inhome wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. And this is moving day with Reliable Service<\/a> appointments in a twohour window so youre up and running in no time. Show me decorating shows. This is staying connected with xfinity to make moving. Simple. Easy. Awesome. Stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and twohour appointment windows. Click, call or visit a store today. An exclusive tonight, cnn has obtained a copy of an email promising Michael Cohen<\/a> that he could sleep well because he had friends in high places. The email is from april of 2018 was sent to cohen by an attorney who said that he was speaking with the president s lawyer Rudy Giuliani<\/a>. With that cast of characters, it is a story full of people that arent known for strict adhere rence to the truth so cnn consultant Gloria Borger<\/a> joins to us see exactly what it means. So what did the emails say . They are from april of 2018. After Michael Cohens<\/a> home and his office were raided. And theyre between Michael Cohen<\/a> and an attorney bob costello and they mostly focus on the relationship between the white house, the president , and Michael Cohen<\/a>. Let me just read to you from one of them. One of them from the attorney. I spoke with rudy. Very, very positive. You are loved. Sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places. Now anderson, we dont have Michael Cohens<\/a> response. And were hoping to get that. But we do not have that. So we also know that these are documents that the congressional committees have. And this was there is an email from Michael Cohen<\/a> to the attorney talking about setting up some kind of a or referencing making a contact, is that right . It was from the attorney. It was from the attorney to Michael Cohen<\/a>. We only have the emails from the attorney to Michael Cohen<\/a>. And in that, he talks about he said that Rudy Giuliani<\/a> was grateful for setting up this kind of a back channel. So we dont really know what that means. Cohen sympathizers say this is the first step in dangling a pardon. Is that what this was about . Were they trying to place kind of a mole as an attorney working with michael so that attorney could tell Rudy Giuliani<\/a> everything Michael Cohen<\/a> was thinking . This is of course before Michael Cohen<\/a> declared his independence in july. And i spoke with the attorney last night, robert costello, who called that Utter Nonsense<\/a> and said, look what we were trying to do is smooth out what had become a rocky relationship between cohen and the president , there had been stories written at the time about the president being angry with michael and vice versa, and that he said michael had asked him to please make sure they all know that im good. As you know they were part of a joint Defense Agreement<\/a> at that time. And shortly after the first email was sent, the president had some kind words for Michael Cohen<\/a> on twitter. Yeah. The president did. He said michael is a businessman for his own account, lawyer, who i have always liked and respected. Most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble. Even if it means lying or making up stories. Sorry. I dont see michael doing that. Despite the horrible witch hunt and the dishonest media. So the president at this point was making the case, i gotcha, michael. I know youre on my team and i think look, everyone at this point after the raid on michaels home and office was kind of worried, what did the feds get . So they were both worried. What did the feds get . And you could see there was concern from the white house too. Fascinating. Gloria borger, thanks so much. Sure. So earlier i spoke with congressman jim himes, democrat from connecticut, member of the house Intelligence Committee<\/a>. Congressman himes, this email to Michael Cohen<\/a> that he can, quote, sleep well tonight because he has quote friends in high places, i wonder how you interpret that. It points to something i cant get into specificity and the press has reported was the subject of conversation with Michael Cohen<\/a> when he was before the Intelligence Committee<\/a>. And there are real questions, and this comes out from a lot that is public as well there are real questions on the topic of pardondangling. And again, i cant be terribly specific about it but i think it is far from the end of that conversation. I think that when the Intelligence Committee<\/a> transcripts are released, there will be some very uncomfortable days for a number of people and there will be questions to follow up on. So, again, as you said, you cant go into specifics, but youre saying based on what you learned in your committees investigation can you say if you have a clearer picture of what actually happened here in regards to a pardon . Well, you see a fairly clear picture emerging from what is public. The president s tweets alone where he calls people who were cooperating rats and weak, and when he praises people who are not cooperating quite so much as strong. Its language right out of the godfather. To answer your specific question, yes. Now, remember, Michael Cohen<\/a> is not somebody whose testimony you take at face value but if Michael Cohen<\/a> were to produce emails or produce written information that was corroborating, it would cause you to think maybe there is something to what hes saying. And as i said before i think this is a story not fully explained at all. And that is the difficulty. Michael cohen is a convicted liar. The president has certainly lied and stretched the truth and we all know his record on that. With so many people with difficulty telling the truth, is it even possible to figure out conclusively where the truth actually lies . Sure it is. And i would point to the to Michael Cohen<\/a> showing up and handing over checks signed by the president backing up his statement that i was reimbursed by the president for paying hush money to stormy daniels. There is documentation, and again i dont want to get into too much detail, but he provided documentation to the committee, these are people who communicate by email and they communicate by text. Though the president does not, the president s people do. And again, i think there is much more to the story that part of the reason were being quiet about exactly what happened in the testimony of Michael Cohen<\/a> is that his testimony and the information that he provided will probably cause us to call in some of those people. And we dont want them to know exactly what Michael Cohen<\/a> said prior to having the opportunity to speak to them. And when does a transcript of the testimony get released . Is it when all is said and done . Well, unlike some of the other stuff from the russia investigation, there is no question of classified material being released because Michael Cohen<\/a> didnt have access to classified material. So that wont be an impediment the way it is with the other transcripts or some of the other transcripts. Again, the one dynamic keeping the transcripts from being released right now is and you can draw the conclusion and infer what you will from this, we will almost certainly want to bring in additional witnesses as a result of the testimony that Michael Cohen<\/a> gave in the two days before my committee and we wont necessarily want those witnesses to know exactly what it was that Michael Cohen<\/a> provided or said about them. And just lastly, i want to get your take on the breaking story, former acting attorney general whitaker would not deny the president called him to discuss the cohen case as well as personnel decisions in the Southern District<\/a> according to congressman nadler. Yeah, that is correct. And i guess it surprises pretty much no one that Matthew Whitaker<\/a>, when he was acting attorney general, that he was acting in defense of the president. This is of course what an awful lot of the president s people have done. I think the president himself acknowledged that whitakers role was there and certainly whitaker made statements earlier that prior to his becoming attorney general acting that would suggest that. So no surprise. Now the big question is there is a difference between people talking about stuff and things actually being done. So the question for us as the body of government charged with oversight is did the acting attorney general take any actions which would have compromised any of the investigations of trump or the Trump Administration<\/a> or more broadly the russia question. Congressman himes, i appreciate it, thank you. Thank you, anderson. So theres more breaking news ahead, including President Trump<\/a>s decision today to ground the boeing 737 max after two deadly crashes in the last five months. Question one, why was the United States<\/a> the last to do it and what was behind the decision . Well have that ahead. They see us as profits. Were paying the highest Prescription Drug<\/a> prices in the world so they can make billions . Americans shouldnt have to choose between buying medication and buying food for our families. Its time for someone to look out for us. Congress, stop the greed. Cut drug prices now. But im more than a number. When im not teaching, im taking steep grades and tight corners. My essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three Innovative Technologies<\/a> for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens the essilor ultimate lens package. So, i can do more of what i love buy two pairs of essilors best lenses and get a 100 back instantly. See more. Do more. Essilor and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. Then i found aleve pm. The only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. Im back. Aleve pm for a better am. My dream car. It turns out, they want me to start next month. She can stay with you to finish her senior year. Things will be tight but, we can make this work. Now. Grandpa, what about your dream car . This is my dream now. Principal we can help you plan for that. Tonight the newest version of the worlds bestselling airliner is now grounded in this country. And one question is why now . The other is why not ground the boeing 737 max series sooner . Why did it take two deadly crashes and practically the rest the whole rest of the world acting first before the decision was made and the president made his announcement late today . Or did everyone else jump the gun and act before enough facts were in . Here is part of what the president said. Airlines are agreeing with us, the safety of the American People<\/a> and all people is our paramount concern. Our hearts go out to all of those who lost loved ones. To their friends and their families in both the ethiopian and the lion crash that is involved the 737 max aircraft. It is a terrible, terrible thing. The president said the federal Aviation Administration<\/a> and Transportation Department<\/a> agreed with the decision a short time later the acting faa administrator said the decision was, in fact, his, meaning the faas. He said the agency just today got enough information to see similarities between the earlier lion air disaster and the crash of the Ethiopian Airlines<\/a> 737 max 8 earlier this week. Investigators suspect a hardware and Software System<\/a> designed to push the planes nose down when its pointing too high might have instead acted to put the plane into a dive. The faa has data suggesting the ethiopia 737 may have followed a similar flight path. You recall yesterday after a phone call from the boeing ceo, the president did not take any action. Today after another call from boeing he did. Here to talk about it is former department of transportation Inspector General<\/a> mary schiavo, cnn aviation analyst as well as plaintiffs attorney for accident victims and their families including, we should add in cases against the boeing company. Also cnn aviation correspondent Richard Quest<\/a> joins us. So the grounding of the planes, what does it mean for air travel in the u. S. Because there are not a lot of the planes actually being used, correct . No, there is not a lot. But they are in some key markets. Southwest has a couple of dozen. American similarly. And united has the max 9. And so were already starting to see some delays and some lines as the airlines switch the planes out. And put in replacements. And it is all happening at a time of course when capacity is pretty tight at the moment. There arent a lot of spare planes about. So i would expect to see a bit of confusion, a few delays and cancellations as the airlines pretty much learn to switch out the new planes, find replacements and lease or borrow or bring those out of retirement to make up the difference. Mary, why do you think the faa didnt move quicker on this compared to the rest of the world, basically . Well, the faa usually takes its cues from boeing and not just in this, in many other instances. It was following boeings lead. Boeing after the accident, after the first and second one, said the plane was safe and insisted there was nothing wrong with it and didnt need major change and the faa simply agreed with them. And you could see that in the air witness directive and the additional directions put out on march 11th after the second crash, the faa said well based on what boeing has told us, so they were following the lead of the manufacturer. So so how long, richard, is it going to take for this issue to be fixed . Are we talking a matter of months or weeks or do we know . Yes. Months. Yes, i think you are. I looked back at the 787 grounding and that went on just over 90 days. The difference slightly is here that boeing has already done much of the work and the patch and the fix and the repair because it was working on the lion air. But there hasnt that hasnt been put into practice yet. And it hasnt been authorized. And there is one big difference i think with this fix over the 787. With the 787 there were fires and problems and delays. But there were no deaths. Here you have had two aircrafts with very serious loss of life. So before boeing will be allowed to put in the fix, and it to be recertified and that is another question the faa is clearly going to have to answer questions that they certified the 787 and that has serious problems. They certified the 737 max 8 and that had deadly problems. So i dont think there is a rush to get these planes back in the air. I think you are looking at weeks and maybe even months. Mary, i want to go back to something you said, the faa takes the lead of the manufacturer. Right. Does that make sense to you . Does that i know youre a plaintiffs attorney and gone after boeing. Does it make the sense the faa would take the lead of the company . Seems like a conflict of interest. No. When i was Inspector General<\/a> of the d. O. T. , we were constantly investigating why the faa seemed to be a toothless tiger and took the boeings word for it and took the airlines words for it. Its not just for boeing, its not like they have a special treatment for boeing. The faa does its job through a series largely of designated inspectors and, for example, at boeing, the inspectors, the surrogates, if you will, to do the inspections for the faa, often are picked from boeing employees. I was tasked to look at the certification of the 777 and there they had 4 million lines of code and 150 computers, and the faa readily admitted, no, we dont know if the computers are safe, we dont know what the lines of code do. All we know is they followed our procedure and the designated inspector said they did. 95 of that plane was selfcertified so thats how they do it, through a series of designated inspectors so they defer what they will readily admit is to the knowledge of boeing as it outstrips the knowledge of the faa. Wow. Its fascinating. Mary schiavo, appreciate you being with us, Richard Quest<\/a> as well. I want to check in with chris, see what hes working on for cuomo primetime. The theory becomes the faa to follow what boeing does. Had every reason you heard schiavo refer to this rotisserie of people going from the private sect tore the public sector. We thought we were going to stop that. Thats part of draining the swamp. We hear all about that. Tonight were going to look deeper at that, coop. I have somebody here who understands what the faa does what it does, to reveal what we all suspect here, this timing doesnt make any sense. The way this has happened just doesnt make any sense, so we need to make sense of it going forward. Also were going to look at the latest developments what we see in the cohen case and what this president has done and whether it is wrong. Not simply criminal. We got the rnc chair here tonight to talk about her thoughts on that, what matters, politically, and how does it affect 2020. All right. Lot to cover tonight, chris. Well see you about seven minutes from now. Coming up, the saddest ridiculist ever. Well be right back. Naysayer said no one would subscribe to a car the way they subscribe to movies. We dont follow the naysayers. Little things can be a big deal. Thats why theres otezla. Otezla is not a cream. Its a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. With otezla, 75 clearer skin is achievable. Dont use if youre allergic to otezla. It may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. Tell your doctor about your medicines, and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Ready to treat differently with a pill . Otezla. Show more of you. Aww. Yaaaayyy aww. Yaaaayyy aww. Yaaaayyy we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. Hotwire hotwire. Com hotwire conventional wisdom says you cant make a 400 horsepower sedan, thats also environmentally conscious. We dont follow conventional wisdom. Time now for the ridiulist. Tonight its profoundly bittersweet. The brains behind this segment, one of my longtime writers on this program, the brilliantly funny faith kleppinger leaving for new adventures. To say she will be missed is a gross under statement. For more years than i can remember, shes been making me smile and everyone here smile with her wit, warmth, wellplaced puns and more than occasional profanities. I, of course, have done my part. I giggle uncontrollably and offer an occasional public apology which ive had to do several times thanks to faith. Its faith whos made these last few minutes every night pure candy. Mike ike do not exist. They are got real people. They are candy. And as such, do not possess genitals. Sour patch kids are not real kids. Starbursts dont have real stars in them. And there isnt an actual ranch where the jolly rancher looks. Yankee candle unveiled its first ever limited Edition Candle<\/a> collection inspired by and created just for men. It turns out some Smaller Companies<\/a> have been trying to tap into this market. Original man candle, for instance, has draft beer, pot roast, and roadkillscented offerings. Cant you smell the roadkill . Totally take holiday cooked up by a seinfeld writer like festivus. Its a real thing. Obscure but real. Im not going to let you do this one. Sorry. Last night on a flight from paris to dublin, depardieu reportedly peed on the floor. Oh, its full of puns. All i can say is they should thank their lucky stars it wasnt depardtwo. Sorry. That made me giggle every time i read it. He hasnt commented on this incident. Depardtwo. I know you got it, but [ laughter ] all right. Sorry. [ laughter ] all right. [ laughter ] sorry. This has actually never happened to me. Always see this sort of thing on youtube. Ah, yes, gerard depardieu, dyngus day which i had to apologize for, the segments that turned me into a human blooper real. Thank you, faith. Without faith, without you, id be another guy telling toilet jokes if front of cnn and blitzer has that audience locked up, though. I wish you great writing and continued success in all you do. Truthfully, ive been dreading this day for years because i always knew that one day you would decide to use your remarkable talents in other ways and now we should all have to muddle along without you because if ive learned anything over the years, is that you got to have faith in life, and on the ridiculist. Thank you, faith. The news continues. I want to hand it over to chris for cuomo primetime. She may have given you the words but nobody could come up with that laugh, coop. Yeah thats all you. A 12yearold girl, maybe. No, no. Would come up with that laugh. Very manly. Very manly. My dad used to laugh the same way. Thank you, coop. Thank you, faith. Im chris cuomo. Welcome to primetime. Did the president try to obstruct the Michael Cohen<\/a> case, did he try to float a pardon . We have two new sources of concern, one are emails obtained by cnn showing an odd back channel between cohen and the president and what was said. The other comes from what was not said by Matthew Whitaker<\/a> regarding control of the cohen case. Does this mean anything for the president legally or politically . We have the head of the gop here. Does she want to defend or is","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800902.us.archive.org\/28\/items\/CNNW_20190314_040000_Anderson_Cooper_360\/CNNW_20190314_040000_Anderson_Cooper_360.thumbs\/CNNW_20190314_040000_Anderson_Cooper_360_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}