Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
FBI: Suspect Began Planning Attack One Year Ago, About Two Months Ago Decided To Use Truck; FBI: NYC Terror Suspect Wanted To Display ISIS Flag On Truck And In Hospital Room; Hero NYPD Officer On NYC Attack: "We Were Just Doing Our Job"; Pres. Trump Calls U.S. Justice System A Joke and Laughingstock; White House Mischaracterizes Visa "Lottery"; Papadopoulos Attended More Than One Campaign Meeting; CNN: Pres. Trump Has Fumed At The Actions Taken By Mueller; Remembering The 8 People Killed In NYC Attack. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 01, 2017 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: -- for CNN's Brynn Gingras joins us with the very latest. So, what was in the complaint?
[21:00:07] BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is a lot to unpack there, Anderson. It really gave a clear picture or where investigators are at this point. A lot of it coming from the suspect himself, what he's told investigators in the hospital, and it's very clear from this complaint that he wanted to inflict mass casualties.
One point being, he told investigators he wanted to perform this attack last night on Halloween night, because he thought that there would be more people on the streets. We also know from him that he wanted to not only drive on the west side highway but continue his rampage along onto the Brooklyn Bridge hoping to kill more people.
COOPER: I also understand we're finding out that this isn't the first time that this radical Islamist rented a truck.
GINGRAS: Yes. That's right, Anderson. He actually, according to this complaint, wanted to carry out an attack -- he made that decision about a year ago, but then he actually rented the truck two months ago, took it out nine days before this attack even happened, drove it around, tried to get a feel for it, and then actually rented the truck to actually carry out this attack.
We also know from this truck that he wanted to put an ISIS flag on it when he carried out the attack but then decided against it thinking it was going to just cause too much alarm to people. We do know, though, he asked investigators if he could hang an ISIS flag in his hospital room. It was very clear then to investigators that he has no remorse. Anderson.
COOPER: And there was other evidence found at the scene?
GINGRAS: Yes, a lot more. We learned, again, from this complaint that there was actually a bag inside this truck and inside that bag there were knives. He told investigators that he wanted to reach for that bag but couldn't when he got out of the truck right after this crash happened yesterday afternoon.
Also in that bag we know that there was a stun gun. We also know that there were two cell phones. One of those cell phones carried about 90 videos, ISIS-related, also thousands of ISIS-related images, another were those cell phone had a number of searches, one of them being Halloween in New York City.
I want to give a little more detail for you, Anderson, also about the note that was found inside that truck. It was very clear to investigators that it was written, it was -- that this attack was carried out for ISIS because in the end of that note, he said it will end -- it will endure, rather, is what he said and that is direct reference to ISIS, according to investigators.
COOPER: All right, Brynn Gingras, appreciate it. We also learned today heard from heroic NYPD officer who shot the suspect, Officer Ryan Nash, a notably humble hero.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OFFICER RYAN NASH, NYPD: I appreciate the public recognition of the actions of myself and my fellow officers yesterday. Although I feel we were just doing our job like thousands of officers do every day. I understand the importance of yesterday's events and the role we played and I'm grateful for the recognition we have received. I just want to thank my family and friends for their support and all of the responding officers who assisted me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Officer Ryan Nash, one of New York's finest. I want to bring in our security experts, informer FBI and CIA senior official, Philip Mudd, also former FBI supervisor special agent, Ali Soufan, also Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and the newest CNN national security analyst.
Ali, you were on the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Just in terms in the investigation, where is that now, what are they facing in terms of what's ahead?
ALI SOUFAN, CHAIRMAN & CEO, THE SOUFAN GROUP: I think they have time to figure out if he's connected to others in the United States or outside. They are trying to publicly figure out if this attack is inspired by ISIS. It seems like it's inspired by ISIS or maybe directed by ISIS or people who are connected to the organization.
COOPER: Either overseas or domestically?
SOUFAN: Yes, absolutely. I mean, first of all, the very first red flag will be the fact that he's an Uzbek. And recently we've been seeing a lot of Uzbeks that joining the so called Islamic state more than 1500 joined in Iraq and Syria, joined ISIS in Iraq and Syria from Uzbekistan. Also, in the same time from his region in central Asia, that includes, you know, Tajik and Uzbek and so many other, you know, countries over there. The former Soviet republics could use more than any other region, more fighters than any other region to the Islamic state.
So there's a lot of things that investigators now will be looking at, both domestically and internationally, to see if there is any connection with ISI or if this attack is just inspired by ISIS as we've seen before in so many different attacks in the United States and, frankly, in Europe.
COOPER: Phil, in the last hour, a former DNI James Clapper was saying that the fact that this guy was taken alive is a potential trove of information and also could help understanding kind of long term what drives people in the radicalization process.
PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: It can but step back ask a fundamental question. Where is this going to get us in the long run term? We've been looking at this stuff for 16 years and you ask a question. Once we understand how this happens in a Democratic society, he's radicalizing by looking at free speech material. He's looking at material online. And then he goes to rent a truck and people are going to say, why can't you find somebody like that? We can study this all we want and I'm not sure we're going to find answers that are satisfying.
[21:05:22] So when you look at the question, what radicalized him and what's the value of an individual who stays alive after the attack, my answer is just where Ali was, it's not the radicalization process. I want to know if he identifies people, places, nodes of radicalization that might identify the next person. What happened to him over the past year? I'm not sure that's going to help us prevent the next attack.
COOPER: Nada, I mean, the fact that this person had almost 4,000 ISIS photos, 90 videos on his phones, would any of his interactions with that type of propaganda online have been a flag into intelligence officials?
NADA BAKOS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it really depends if he had been on their radar at all priors to this. I think Ali could answer this better than I can having works mostly international terrorism but if he's looking at information that is directly connected to a target, the Intelligence Community is interested in, he could have floated onto their radar but where he had kept under wraps, basically the United States and from what we know has radicalized here it's likely that he was never obvious.
COOPER: Nada, I mean, the fact that ISIS now has suffered greatly on the battlefields in Iraq, in Syria, that they're, you know, reportedly on their heels, in many senses, does that mean that they are less likely or less capable of encouraging people online or are the online -- I remember in past cases I think that there was an online recruiter in Raqqa, there was one in Somalia, I think. I think the guy in Raqqa that I was studying about got killed in a drone strike. Not sure what happened to guy in Somalia. But -- does the battlefield losses, does that impact their ability to reach out online?
BAKOS: Well, it could have impacted their ability to actually generate more propaganda. I mean, they have a slew of it online at this point that anybody can reach into and find, but this would impact their ability to generate new propaganda, new tactics, new techniques that somebody else can use to actually foment this kind of attack.
Now, I don't think necessarily that it's going to withdraw the numbers of people who would actually do something like this. Especially somebody radicalized domestically. But I think it could have an impact on the amount of propaganda.
COOPER: Ali, you know, that term lone wolf is often kind of thrown around.
SOUFAN: Right.
COOPER: I mean, is that an accurate term for some of these people?
SOUFAN: You know, for the most part, it's not. Because eventually there are some people who knew about what that individual --
COOPER: People talk?
SOUFAN: People talk. You know, people sometimes ignore it. He has connections with others. I know that they were looking for another Uzbek and I think they were able to locate him. So there's always something. I mean, it's becoming more of a known wolf rather than a lone wolf because every time we get someone or somebody does anything in the U.S. or even in Europe, we know he was on some radar and that gives you just an indication about the pressure law enforcement and intelligence services are under.
In Europe, for example, you have more than 1200 ISIS fighters that actually went back to their home countries. They returned. That puts significant pressure on services all across Europe. In the UK alone there is more than 425. So when they are focusing on people, they focus on an individual who just returned from Syria rather than focusing on an individual who is watching videos on Youtube and unfortunately, the guy who is watching the videos on Youtube is the person who conducted the terrorist attack.
COOPER: I mean, Phil, it is -- it's not just a problem overseas for intelligence services and also for the FBI here at home. And there have been cases in the United States of FBI running undercover informants against potential, you know, Islamic radicals. And for years and yet, ultimately, the person doesn't do anything for several years and they finally at a certain point have to say, do we continue this undercover operation with great resources or do we move on with someone else and then they (INAUDIBLE) the rest, then the person acts.
MUDD: Radicalization is not illegal. The question is, when does somebody decide to commit an act of violence, that's a decision they make inside of their own head and when did they begin executing that decision to undertake an act of violence. So you can be up on somebody electronically, e-mail, phone, et cetera, you can be up on somebody in the human form, human intelligence, that is an informant into somebody. If they don't make a mistake, the Intel business lives off vulnerabilities and mistakes. If they don't talk to the wrong person, e-mail the wrong person, get on the wrong chat room, how do you decide when someone transitions from what's legal in the United States, I like ISIS, that's legal. To what's illegal, I'm going to conduct an act of violence on the west side highway that's going to kill eight people. That's really difficult to figure out in a country of 330 million people.
[21:09:57] COOPER: Nada, in terms of the investigation, I mean, does it make much difference whether he was directed by ISIS or whether he just watched, you know, propaganda videos online or was talking to other radicals in the U.S. and went about doing this?
BAKOS: You know, I'm not really sure that it does at this point. There's enough propaganda. There's enough information for him to pull from. You know, they just -- ISIS just submitted, you know, a propaganda last year instructions on how to do a vehicle attack with enough propaganda they talked about a note that you should leave, that you have similar language as to what he left, whether or not he was connected to anybody that was helping direct him as maybe not totally relevant in this case. It can be significant if the individual is planning something that's larger that they are not as familiar with. An attack like this does not take a lot of sophistication to pull off.
COOPER: Yes. Nada Bakos, appreciate it, Ali Soufan as well, Phil Mudd as well.
Just to add tonight, we're going to turn pur focus to the even men and one women who lost their lives yesterday. We want to honor their lives by telling their stories.
Also, next, what the president said about justice as he put it, calling it a joke, the justice system in America, and a laughingstock. The question is, was the attack on the very thing that makes country this country. I'll talk to the panel about that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: But before the first charge was read today here in New York against the alleged truck attack killer, the terrorist, the president was sending signals that the prosecution would somehow be different and by comparison would be better than in past cases. He took the opportunity to criticize the justice system as it now stands. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need quick justice and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughing stock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:16] COOPER: So you heard the president say what we have right now, talking about the justice system is a joke and a laughing stock. Keep that in mind as we play a clip of White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders denying the president said what you just heard him say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did the president call the U.S. justice system a joke and laughing stock during his comments?
SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That's not what he said.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said that the system of justice is --
SANDERS: He said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughing stock.
Look, I think, as I told Margaret, he's simply pointing out his frustration at how long that this process takes. How costly this process is and particularly for someone to be a known terrorist, that process should move faster. That's the point he's making. That's the frustration he has.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: OK, so there's that. Also, Sarah Sanders' announcement today that the White House considers alleged killer an unlawful enemy combatant. Though, how it drives with today's decision to charge him isn't clear. I want to bring in the panel, Kristen Powers, Rick Santorum, Maria Cardona, Ed Martin, Paul Callan, and Phil Mudd.
Kirsten, is the president -- is it appropriate for the president to talk -- say about the --
KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I don't -- well, I think generally his entire reaction to this hasn't been appropriate, you know
COOPER: How so?
POWERS: Well, attacking, you know, Senator Schumer and we can get into that later. I mean, it wasn't even accurate but even if it was, just going after a U.S. senator trying to blame them for a terror attack essentially is inappropriate.
Look, there are problems with the U.S. criminal justice system. It's not that justice, it moves too slowly, though. That's just not the problem and, you know, I think we can talk about the fact that a lot of people of, you know, people of color don't get treated as well as they should in the criminal justice system, but it's not that we need to get rid of our processes that protect people who have been accused of crimes. So I'm not even sure what Sarah Sanders was talking about, that the process is moving too slowly. I don't know which process is moving too slowly.
RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I would agree with you about the process is moving slowly, but I think there is a problem with our criminal justice system. John McCain pointed out and many of us have pointed it out for a long time, when someone commits an act of terrorism in the United States, particularly I would argue, someone who is not a United States citizen, they should not be treated like a normal criminal. They should be treated as an enemy combatant, they shouldn't be (INAUDIBLE) to Miranda rights, they should be interrogated not under the protection of Miranda and I think a lot of folks are concerned about that, that we aren't doing what we need to do to combat the terrorist activity and that by treating this person as just an ordinary criminal is just --
COOPER: Do you think they should be sent to Guantanamo?
SANTORUM: I think that's another issue. I'm not sure that that's the sort of the most effective way to deal with this. But the idea that we treat an enemy combatant, which this person truly is, the same way we'd treat someone who committed a murder --
COOPER: -- they don't have to be Mirandaized. My understanding according to Supreme Court, Jeff Toobin last night was talking about, there is an exemption for these kind of --
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, there's an emergency doctrine that in the aftermath of something like this, you can interrogate without Miranda warnings to protect public safety.
And as to the senator's, you know, point and the president's point, to say that we'd be better off treating this guy as an enemy combatant, I think there's a misunderstanding as to what that means because enemy combatants are soldiers in wars and they get treated under the Geneva Convention as prisoners of war and then they are repatriated to the country they came from. And senator -- I'd like to see the guy go to jail. And not be treated wit the dignity that a prisoner of war is supposed to be treated with under the Geneva Convention. That's how an enemy combatant is supposed to be treated.
ED MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I have to say, when I was, you know, the president -- I had read it, I hadn't seen his words on it, the backdrop I see is that we have federal judges striking down his constitution role as the person who sets immigration policy. So when he says justice isn't happening fast enough, we now know this guy drove his truck onto these people and killed them, right? We ought to be -- the system is being bogged down by a combination of judges who think they are in charge more broadly than they should be and at the ACLU and others using a system.
So this guy gets 17 appeals. His point is, if you're an American, you're going to watch the New York marathon this weekend and when you see those guys cross the finish line and gals, you're going to think of Boston four years ago because that's how you feel and you're going to want somebody finally to say, let's get this guy and put him away and not mess around.
COOPER: I mean, the Boston marathon bomber is on death row.
MARTIN: Right. But, I'm fine and that one fast. That was a good one. That was fine.
COOPER: But, I mean, this is only day one of this thing. And charges have already been leveled.
MARTIN: Right, but Americans -- Americans know that the systems -- this systems they go too slowly.
(CROSSTALK)
[21:20:01] CALLAN: Guess who's in charge of the prosecution.
MARTIN: Right.
CALLAN: The president.
MARTIN: Exactly.
CALLAN: The head of law enforcement in America.
MARTIN: And that's what he's saying.
CALLAN: Well, why doesn't he speed it up since he's running the prosecutorial system?
COOPER: But also, for, you know, for all of us who love the constitution and care about the constitution, isn't this process enshrined in --
MARTIN: No. Oh, no. Not at all.
POWERS: It's due process.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: -- the system taking months and years and judges being out of control is not enshrined.
COOPER: Right, due process. Right.
MARTIN: Well, due process but not the current version.
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: From what we have seen of the people who have been charged with terrorism acts, they have actually gotten justice. They are in jail or on death row and quickly.
So I don't know what he's talking about when he says the process --
MARTIN: -- he's talking about.
CARDONA: But it doesn't make sense given the facts because the people who have been charged with terrorism in the past have gotten justice. No one has been off the hook.
COOPER: I mean, the record of convictions, from understanding, I was talking to professor earlier. The record of convictions in courts for terrorism suspects is actually far better than out of Guantanamo.
MARTIN: But the American people, Anderson, are watching -- they're watching their country invaded. They've elected this man president because he said he would build a wall, make us safer and he has federal judges saying things like I'm going to tell you --
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: I agree with that, on the issue of immigration and the frustration that the president has with the court system, delaying his immigration policies and potentially the impact in America in doing so. That is a separate issue than what we're talking about here.
And so I'm not going to argue that the criminal justice system is slow. I don't agree with the president's comments that the criminal justice system is laughable. I do believe that -- and I do disagree that we should not give people who are in this country who are not citizens and who are enemy combatants -- not even open the question as to how we treat citizens who have aligned with a foreign power to attack this country as whether we give them the same constitution rights as an ordinary system and I would say we should not.
COOPER: Phil as you, from a law enforcement --
MUDD: NFL season, I have to throw a penalty flag as a practitioner. I assume as an American citizen whether you're a Republican or Democrat, constitution -- I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I want to see a terrorist in jail and the key is thrown away. So let's do a side by side.
Hundreds and hundreds of prosecutions post 9/11 in federal courts of prisons, high degree of conviction, speedy trials, cheaper than Guantanamo and as you heard today, some of the convictions, including the charges against the individual today, that's a life or that's a death. He may face the death penalty. So you have convictions, successful convictions and terms.
(CROSSTALK)
MUDD: Can I speak?
(CROSSTALK)
MUDD: Excuse me, Mr. Politician the practitioner would like to speak.
SANTORUM: Go ahead.
MUDD: And furthermore --
SANTORUM: And by the way this has --
MUDD: And furthermore, people talk about threat the U.S. courts, can you point to a significant threat, including in cases that involve central figures in the Bin Laden organization in any trial in the United States? Let me give you, in closing, the comparison and contrast in Guantanamo.
Fewer than 20 convictions, they take forever and they cost everything and you want to tell me, forget about politics that if success is defined by a long time behind bars, speedy trials and hundreds of prisoners, a better success is fewer than 20 for millions of dollars outside of the American system. I don't understand the --
SANTORUM: Well the answer is let's not --
COOPER: We'll continue the conversation --
SANTORUM: That's the problem. It's not a success. It's how much information you're getting and the availability of that information that you can't get in the criminal justice system because they're protected by rights and that's the fundamental difference.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: But they did get a lot of information from this guy. I mean, he's talking --
CALLAN: And they did from the Boston bomber as well because they can question under emergency doctrine and not give Miranda warnings.
COOPER: All right, we're going to conversation because it's important. We're also going to hear something Sarah Sanders said today about the diversity immigrant visa program. She said a lot of people come to the United States randomly with no vetting. That's just not true about the no vetting. We'll talk about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:27:28] COOPER: We're talking about what the president said about the justice system in the United States. Just to remind you. Here are his remarks from today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We need quick justice and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughing stock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Ed, I mean, does it hurt Sarah Huckabee Sanders' credibility when at the podium she says, that's not what the president said, he didn't say it's a joke and a laughing stock. He said people are saying?
MARTIN: Well, I'm going to probably make, you know, make you crazy here when I tell you, when I watch him speak like that, like he's done his whole public career now, what I hear him saying is, our country is being invaded by people that are running over kids on Halloween. And we have to change what we're doing. So when he talks about -- he does not speak --
COOPER: -- but he saying it's a joke and a laughing stock and then Sarah Huckabee --
MARTIN: It is a joke.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: OK, you agree it's a joke, that Sarah Huckabee Sanders says he did not say it's a joke. He said --
MARTIN: Well, she's asked about, a question about -- does he say the justice system -- the whole system is a joke. And what when I hear him saying is, what we have happening --
COOPER: But she lied about what he -- she was not accurate in her portrayal of what he said.
MARTIN: Well, I don't know, that (INAUDIBLE) off to. I don't know what she -- the questions thrown to her. My point is that the president said, the country looking up, a lot of us, and saying thank goodness we have a president who's going to go after this. You know what, because people are getting run over on Halloween.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I just want to play what Sarah Sanders said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did the president call the U.S. justice system a joke and a laughing stock during his comments in --
SANDERS: That's not what he said.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said that the system of justice in this country --
SANDERS: He said the process. He said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughing stock.
Look, I think, as I told Margaret, simply pointing out his frustration at how long that this process takes. How costly this process is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: I mean, look, people misspeak all the time, you know, and stuff like that. I don't want to -- seem like we're playing (INAUDIBLE) stuff but -- I mean, she just not being --
SANTORUM: And she should have said, that's not what he meant.
COOPER: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: Look, as we all know Donald Trump is not necessarily precise in the way he addresses issues off the cuff and I can understand if she said, well, he didn't really mean that. He meant his frustration.
CARDONA: If she said that, though, she would be in so much trouble because we know --
[21:30:00] SANTORUM: I hear you.
CARDONA: -- that this is not a president whoever wants to be challenged about the things that he says when they're not true when in fact the majority of what comes out of his mouth are untruths or misguided --
COOPER: I wouldn't say the majority --
CARDONA: Reality is --
SANTORUM: A lot.
CARDONA: Well, I mean, he was rated as the candidate who lie the most during the campaign.
COOPER: But not the majority.
CARDONA: But here's the thing. When he says things like, you know, it's our justice system is a laughing stock and it's a joke, he's talking down the whole country.
MARTIN: No, he's not.
CARDONA: Yes, he is. And when you say that Americans look at that and they feel proud, essentially not the majority of Americans.
COOPER: It's also --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I just wonder what he compares to this because -- I mean, he keeps talking about strength and it's got to be fast and strong. I mean, Egypt, it's fast and strong.
CARDONA: Right.
COOPER: I'm not sure -- I wouldn't want to live under the Egyptian justice system. I mean, there's plenty of countries where --
CARDONA: And Saudi Arabia, too, right?
COOPER: -- justice is fast and strong. But it doesn't actually --
CARDONA: But it's --
COOPER: -- mean it's --
CARDONA: That's why we have the constitution.
MARTIN: You want someone to disagree with your point? I mean, you guys are missing what the president said. I mean, you're hearing him say a critique of the speed of the actual justice system from plead, from --
COOPER: We're actually listening to what he says.
MARTIN: No, but we watched this guy now for a year and two years and what he's saying there to the people is, some kids got driven over by and killed last night and we're sick of this and we're sick of judges striking down the extreme vetting program. We're sick of policy --
(CROSSTALK)
CARDONA: -- constitutional? That's why --
MARTIN: No, it's not --
(CROSSTALK)
CARDONA: -- like judges.
MARTIN: No, they're not. District court judges --
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: District court judges are not the ones that are supposed to make those decisions. That's not a constitutional move.
CARDONA: But that's what the justice system is saying.
MARTIN: No, it's not.
CARDONA: Yes.
MARTIN: Otherwise they are in charge.
CALLAN: You know, Anderson, the thing that I thought was most disturbing about his statement was, first of all, he starts up by calling the suspect an animal and then he says that our justice system is a laughing stock.
Now, I looked back to see, you know, George Bush after 9/11, what did George Bush, -- he wasn't considered to be particularly eloquent. He talked about the terrorists could shatter American's steel but they could not shatter American resolve and he said Americans should move forward with peace and justice and now what does Trump say? Trump says they're animals and basically implies we should just take them out and shoot them --
MARTIN: No, no, no, no.
CALLAN: -- like you do in some third world country.
MARTIN: No, no, no, no, come on.
CALLAN: That's the implication.
COOPER: Ed, he has in the past, in front of a crowd of police officers, said you shouldn't be so delicate with them, don't worry about, you know, putting your hand on their head when you're putting them in the police car. These are suspects, not people who have been convicted of a crime so that was a joke and what he said today seems to kind of echo that idea.
MARTIN: But you're saying is he's consistent on how he talks about issues --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: -- about ignoring the process.
MARTIN: And by the way, listen, American rejected the attempt that we did. We tried to say that those guys who came in here illegally that killed --
COOPER: But, Ed, you are somebody who loves the constitution --
MARTIN: Right.
COOPER: -- and yet due process does not seem something that -- you're just like tired of it.
MARTIN: No, due process is in the constitution. What we have today is too many judges that you think are in charge of the country in charge of holding things back.
CALLAN: Well, no judge has weighed in on this case yet. OK. The only thing that's happened in this case --
COOPER: Ed, like you're writing a new part of the constitution.
MARTIN: No, I'm actually going back to the constitution instead of going to the constitution she wants with judges in charge. A Hawaii judge striking down the president's policy based on Congress' law that they pass. And I go back to this, though --
(CROSSTALK)
CARDONA: You're just mad because you don't like the outcome.
COOPER: Kirsten --
CARDONA: Yes, absolutely.
POWERS: But it's a policy that would have done nothing to stop this attack. And the other thing as you said that we're being invaded by people running over people with trucks.
MARTIN: Correct.
POWERS: That's just a false statement. I mean, that's not --
(CROSSTALK)
POWERS: I'm not denying that eight people died but that's not the same thing as saying people have invaded our country and are just running over people.
First of all, he didn't invade the country. Let's just start there. And the reality is, statistically speaking, as tragic as this is, it's not very common. Now at the same time, we'll have probably 11,000ish people killed by homicide with a gun this year and you don't want to do anything about that, I'm pretty sure, and -- and yet we will at the same time period tragically have eight people who have died and you want to shut the borders, basically.
MARTIN: Right. Yes.
COOPER: We got to take a quick break. We're going to continue the conversation next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:37:53] COOPER: As we reported, less than 24 hours after a deadly terror attack in New York City, the president used the occasion to criticize New York Senator Chuck Schumer and blame the Democrats in general for the suspect getting in to the country. At issue is the diversity immigrant visa program which was established in 1990. The idea was to diversity the pool of people who can immigrate to the United States. Applicants are selected from countries that have low rates of immigration in the previous five years of immigration to the U.S. So here's what Sarah Sanders said today about that program.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDERS: That the fact that we have a lottery system that randomly decides who gets the greatest opportunity in the world, one of the best things that we have in this country is the fact that everybody wants to be here and to give that away randomly, to have no vetting system, to have no way to determine who comes, why they are here and if they want to contribute to society is a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Keeping them honest, Sanders is incorrect when she says there is no vetting. There are education and work requirements, financial requirements and, as with all immigrants, no one with a criminal background is allowed, so the same vetting as for every immigrant. Now you can argue the vetting is not tough enough, that's totally a matter of opinion, but it is the same vetting as -- in the other immigrants. It's not true that there's none at all. So just, you know, it's a matter of fact.
SANTORUM: Having said that.
COOPER: Yes.
SANTORUM: Every immigration bill in the past several years, bipartisan and otherwise, have gotten rid of this program.
COOPER: Right. And I wanted to talk to you about that.
SANTORUM: So let's just be honest about it. This is not a popular --
COOPER: Right. SANTORUM: It's not done what everybody thought. My recollection was, it was put in by Ted Kennedy because he wanted more Irish coming into the country, believe it or not, and it's more from Europe to basically Africa and you have this basic question is, you know, these people who really want to be Americans? They can been the (INAUDIBLE) and value structures that -- and so there's a bigger issue here with this but --
COOPER: Right, I totally get. I'm not arguing that.
SANTORUM: The bottom line is, this program needs to go and we should, you know, -- one thing we should do is if we can't pass the big immigration bill, let's pass the small one. And --
[21:39:52] POWERS: Yes, but before -- yes, all of that is right but the White House didn't seem concerned with any of these facts and instead went out and started impugning Senator Schumer.
And you're right it's -- well, Schumer was the one who introduced it. It became part of the law with the 1990 immigration act which was signed by the first President Bush and it was to encourage Italian and Irish immigrants. It was later then -- and it was bipartisan approval, later on they decided to get rid of it and it did pass the Senate and --
(CROSSTALK)
POWERS: -- in the House and that's what happened. And so, it was a completely bipartisan thing. To sort -- to take a terrorist attack and turn it into an attack on a U.S. senator and it's not even factually correct. I mean, what she was saying, what the president said, it's just not true. It's not what happened.
SANTORUM: Well, my bigger concern with this is that, you know, we're within 24 hours of this happening and I don't think the president or anybody should be out there --
POWERS: Right.
SANTORUM: I mean, just like -- I'm going to be consistent, when the gun control folks come out of the woodwork, you know, two hours after there's a shooting and I say, you know, just -- you know, give time here, let's --
COOPER: You're saying it's too soon?
SANTORUM: It's just -- no, it's too soon. I mean, I agree, we should have a debate on immigration. But not right now.
CARDONA: I think that's exactly right. And that's actually how he treated Vegas but we now know that it was for different reasons because saying something about immigration as soon as a terrorist act occurs, President Trump knows that that is something that his base will love because they do.
My fear is, as the only immigrant on this panel, is that he's going to continue to use the issue of immigration as a divisive issue to scare people into thinking that all immigrants are bad, all --
COOPER: From law enforcement standpoint, I mean, when you look back at past attacks, or when you're working with the FBI, the CIA. I mean, is it -- I mean, from my remembrance of this, it's not people coming directly over from other countries. I mean, I think there's been a handful of those. It's mostly second generation people.
MUDD: I think there issues here that are fundamentally separate. I think Senator Santorum is correct. There's a lot of people who agree, why do we let people in just because they happen to win a lottery? I mean, I think that's a fair question.
COOPER: That's an arguable --
MUDD: That's correct. That is not a national security question. If you look at the people that I typically would have follow when I was at the FBI coming over from the CIA over to the Hoover building, you're looking at people who are born in the United States and who become radicalized or people like this individual we've seen in the last 24 hours who moved over here seven years ago. I think we're going to find that he was not radicalized overseas. He was radicalized when he came here.
So if you're talking about this bill, this issue of whether we should have people coming in on as a lottery, I'd say as American citizen, I don't really understand it. If you're talking about extreme vetting, that is a different issue. How would a person who was not radicalized, whether from Ireland or from Uzbekistan, who is coming in here, how would they crop up on an extreme radicalization radar? They're not going to because people like me are going to say they have never talked to anybody, they never said anything, and I'm not following 7 billion people around the world and I don't have a perfect picture of what they think.
COOPER: Ed?
MARTIN: Well, one way to do that is you don't let people come from countries where the people are not subscribing to the American system. We have a track record. That's what the president's judgment --
(CROSSTALK)
MUDD: Somalia, East Asia?
MARTIN: Yes, there you go.
MUDD: That's right.
MARTIN: That's good list.
MUDD: So countries who don't believe in nuclear policy so I included Japan and New Zealand?
MARTIN: And that's where I -- I don't know about that. That's why we elected a president to be in charge of that policy. CALLAN: Wasn't Uzbekistan, by the way, a country that aided when we invaded Afghanistan? They let us fly in to air Afghanistan after 9/11.
MARTIN: I'm sure --
CALLAN: So that's where he --
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: -- but it's the people that are coming --
CALLAN: That's where he came from.
MARTIN: If the people that are coming from countries, what the president said and what he ran on --
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: By the way, back to your point --
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: What? That's not my job. That's not my job, because --
(CROSSTALK)
CALLAN: -- that helps us.
MARTIN: -- the president does, and the Congress does.
Here's what you misunderstood, this election was fundamentally about the question of controlling the borders and letting people in. It's not about the past. It's about what we've seen happen to us and it has to do with the values and it has to do with criminals.
COOPER: All right.
MARTIN: That's what has gone on.
COOPER: We got to take a break. I want to thank everybody in the panel.
Up next, lots of new headlines on the Russia investigation, including the president's close associates will appear next on Capitol Hill.
Plus, we'll talk to the House Intelligence Committees Adam Schiff, where his take on the indictments.
Also, remembering the victims from this terror attack.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:48:29] COOPER: Two other big story this week, the Russia investigation, we are learning a lot of new details. First, George Papadopoulos was at more than one Trump campaign meeting. The second meeting was with now Attorney General Jeff Sessions but not the president. That revelation comes after Sarah Sanders insisted Monday that he only went to one foreign policy group meeting.
Also, breaking news on the president's mindset as all of this news unfolds, sources tell CNN the president spent hours isolated in his third floor residence over the last two days, closely following and (INAUDIBLE) be these new developments. He's apparently had to reschedule briefing before the president's high stakes foreign trip to Asia that begins on Friday.
And finally, another new headline tonight, the House Intelligence Committee has witness, interview slated for the next two weeks that includes former Trump aide and body man, Keith Schiller. He's one of the president's closes confidant, to speak with Congressional investigators behind closed doors.
Earlier today I spoke with the Congressman Adam Schiff from the House Intelligence on the latest developments on the Russia investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAEP)
COOPER: Congressman, what do you make of the fact that George Papadopoulos was actually in two meetings with the campaign, not one as the Trump administration had claimed? I mean, do you still believe he was a little more than a coffee boy as some of the allies of the president are claiming?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: No, I don't think that's accurate at all. But, of course, this is part of a pattern that we have seen where -- when any of these contacts are exposed, the Trump campaign tries to diminish their significance. Just last week, in fact, one that was revealed that they had a Cambridge Analytica, the data analytics over (ph) the campaign which Jared Kushner earlier touted as being so consequential in their campaign, when it was revealed that Mr. Nix had reached out to Julian Assange in an effort to try to obtain the stolen e-mails. Once again, we saw the campaign downplay, well, they really have much (INAUDIBLE). We got most of our information somewhere else. So it's part of a broad pattern. They also tried to diminish the significance, of course, of the indictment of Manafort and Gates.
[21:50:20] COOPER: You would still like to speak to Manafort, to Gates?
SCHIFF: Absolutely. And I also would hope --
COOPER: Is that possible, even though -- because of the charges already?
SCHIFF: Well, you know, there are the technical constraints of them being under house arrest. Then there's more practical constraint that it's unlikely that maybe willing to testify and not invoke the fifth now that they've been charged. But I'm hoping that when the case is resolved that at that point as a part of any agreement, if there be one, that Mr. Mueller will require their cooperation not just with him but also with Congress. COOPER: I assume you'd like to talk to Papadopoulos as well.
SCHIFF: Absolutely. And he was on our witness list. He was already very much a person of interest in our investigation and apparently he's agreed to cooperate, but whether that's agreed to cooperate only with Bob Mueller or with us too is yet to be determined.
COOPER: Your committee is interviewing former aide to the president and long time confident Keith Schiller next Tuesday. I mean, he was, you know, sort of the president's body man for going back for years. What information do you hope he can provide? Are there specific topics you hope to question him on?
SCHIFF: Well, the majority apparently is the releasing our witness list. I'm not sure why because the agreement is to keep that confidential and allow the witnesses to disclose if they choose to.
So at this point I don't want to confirm whether he is coming before the committee. But we do have a busy few weeks ahead of us. We're interviewing often multiple witnesses a day. Frankly, I'm not sure that that kind of schedule is good for the investigation in the sense that sometimes we're still waiting for the documents to interview these witnesses on. But there's a concerted push to bring people in fast and furious. I think in an effort to bring us to a premature conclusion.
COOPER: Are you saying that the majority on the committee are kind of pushing things too fast?
SCHIFF: Well, I notice an appreciable uptick in the pace and also unilateral actions of the committee. That is actions taken without consultation with the minority. And we have seen ample evidence of that with the new investigation of Uranium One with the subpoenas being issued by the chair that I think are a response to a call that Steve Bannon made a few weeks ago that the Republicans need to bring these investigations to a halt and turn their attention and focus to investigating Hillary Clinton.
So I think we are seeing in Congress a response to what Bannon is urging, what the president is urging. I don't think it's in the interests of our investigation and I do think it's an effort to distract and place the focus elsewhere.
I'm particularly disturbed, Anderson, that the president and White House have violated Department of Justice policy by intervening with the Department of Justice in order to push forward this investigation of Hillary Clinton. It's yet another erosion of our system of checks and balances.
COOPER: I mean, that's pretty damning criticism that you believe it was a phone call by Steve Bannon, pressure from Steve Bannon that House Republicans are responding to.
SCHIFF: Well, you know, I think that Mr. Bannon may have been right when he said that he has more influence outside the building than he does inside the building. It's hard for me to escape the conclusion that this sudden interest in the Uranium One investigation or transaction is unrelated to the president continually urging, hey, Republicans, do something, literally all in caps, the same week that information leaks that the people close to him may be under indictment. He's urging the Republicans to do something.
But all along he's been urging them not to investigate Russia but to investigate Hillary Clinton, and Bannon the same way. And I think we are seeing the very tangible results of that.
COOPER: Congressman Schiff, appreciate your time. Thank you.
SCHIFF: Thanks, Anderson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, coming up ahead tonight, we'll tell you a little bit about what we know about the eight people whose lives were cut short by a terrorist in New York yesterday. Eight people from three different counties on big trips to New York with friends or family who are just out for a bike ride between meetings (ph). We remember them next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:57:08] COOPER: Tourists, lifelong friends marking the anniversary with a trip to New York. A young man just starting a promising career. A woman traveling with her sisters and mom. A man on a quick bike ride between meetings. These are the eight people killed in yesterday's terror attack. Tonight we remember them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER (voice-over): It was a reunion of old friends who had attended the same Polytechnic High School in Argentina. They were celebrating their 30th reunion with a trip to New York City and a bike ride along the Hudson River.
"That's it, champion," one of the men exclaims, they're biking along the same path as Tuesday's tragedy, a few miles north of where the attack happened. The men believed to be filming this Ariel Benvenuto would survive. Five of his friends did not.
In this photo taken before they boarded their plane to America, the Argentinian victims are pictures standing arm in arm with their classmates. "Libre" printed on their t-shirts, Spanish for free. Hernan Ferrucchi, Alejandro Pagnucco, Ariel Erlij, Hernan Mendoza, and Diego Angelini were all killed.
Nicholas Cleves was the only native New Yorker to have died in Tuesday's attack, according to social media accounts he attended Elizabeth Irwin High School in lower Manhattan before heading to Skidmore College upstate. He just graduate last year with a degree in computer science and just returned to New York City to start a job as a software engineer. His life was just getting started. Nicholas Cleves was 23 years old. Darren Drake was the other American killed in the attack, a 32-year- old project manager worked at seven world trade center. He was on a bike ride in between meetings when he was hit by the truck, according to his father, who described him as the perfect son.
JIMMY DRAKE, FATHER OF VICTIM DARREN DRAKE: I'm not even angry. I'm not. I'm not angry at all. I'm hurt. I'm absolutely hurt.
COOPER: Drake was from nearby New Milford, New Jersey. He graduated from Rutgers in 2007 with a degree in political science and went on for a master's in business administration from Fairleigh Dickinson University. He was well on his way to his second master's in science when he was killed. Drake had also served as his local school board president. The superintendent of the district called his death senseless, saying Darren was a good man with a soft touch and huge heart.
The eighth and final victim was 31-year-old Belgian, Anne-Laure Decadt. In a statement, her husband called her a fantastic wife and the most beautiful mom to our two sons of three months and three years old. He said this loss is unbearable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Eight lives cut short. Eight families forever changed.
Time now for Don Lemon in "CNN Tonight".
DON LEMON, "CNN TONIGHT" HOST: Breaking news on the Russia investigation and the response from an angry president.
This is "CNN Tonight". I'm Don Lemon.
