Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

North Korea Threatens to Pull Out of U.S. Summit; "New York Times:" Justice Department, FBI Are Investigating Cambridge Analytica; Federal Judge: Manafort Trial Can Proceed, Different Judge Earlier Assailed Mueller Probe; For President Trump, Sorry Seems To Be the Hardest Word; No Evidence of A Crime in Border Patrol Agent's Death; President Trump: The First Lady Remains In Good Spirits, Will Leave Walter Reed Medical Center in Two or Three Days; TMZ: Meghan Markle's Father Now Says He Can't Attend Royal Wedding Due To Heart Surgery. Aired on 8-9p ET

Aired May 15, 2018 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[20:00:06] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. Thanks for joining us.

We begin with breaking news. Just five days after the president announced on Twitter the date and location for his summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, North Korea is threatening to cancel it.

Now, the summit still may happen June 12th in Singapore, as the president announced just days ago, but there is certainly a new dose of doubt tonight.

North Korea suspended talks with South Korea and says that the United States should carefully consider the fate of the summit because of what it calls provocative military disturbances with South Korea. They're referring to a joint military drill conducted by South Korea and the U.S., an exercise called Max Thunder involving the United States Air Force and South Korean forces with about 2,000 troops participating, according to the Department of Defense.

Now, North Korea is calling the drill a, quote, deliberate provocation. North Korea's threat to call off the summit caught the White House certainly off guard today, according to aides.

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert took the podium for a briefing just as the reports were coming in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEATHER NAUERT, SPOKESPERSON, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Kim Jong-un has said previously he understands the need and the utility of the United States and the Republican of Korea continuing in its joint exercises. They are exercises that are legal. They are planned well, well, in advance.

We have not heard anything from that government or the government of South Korea to indicate that we would not continue conducting these exercises, or that we would not continue planning for our meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un next month. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So, a surprise at the State Department and at the White House, where Boris Sanchez joins us tonight.

So, what was the reaction? How surprised was the White House about this announcement today?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, there, Anderson.

Yes, apparently, they were blindsided by this news from North Korea that the regime planned to cancel talks with South Korea and that warning from the North Koreans that they may cancel altogether the planned meeting with President Donald Trump in Singapore, about a month from now. Sources indicating that aides were completely caught off-guard.

One senior administration official actually telling us that the president found out about this development through news reports, that they didn't hear this directly from Pyongyang or even from Seoul, and perhaps this sort of showcases just how unexpected this news was, the idea that there had been recent momentum toward that summit, acts of good faith on both sides, whether President Trump calling Kim Jong-un smart and gracious or Kim Jong-un releasing those American prisoners and allowing the return to the United States last week.

It really underscores something that we've heard from critics and skeptics within the administration, including national security adviser John Bolton, who over the weekend pointed out the history here. The fact that there have been previous deals made with North Korea before, that they have ultimately violated, Anderson.

COOPER: They now issued a statement, correct, the White House?

SANCHEZ: They have. Yes. It took some time, frankly.

Apparently, the communications shop was consulting with the Department of Defense, as well as with National Security Council. Ultimately, here's the statement put out by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

She writes, quote: We are aware of the South Korean media report. The United States will look at what the North Korean -- or rather, what North Korea has said independently and continue to coordinate closely with our allies. Clear here that the administration understands they have to walk a very fine line, if they still want this summit to happen. Also notable, because President Trump has been so brash, going back several months in his language about North Korea.

He did have a chance, multiple chances to answer reporters' questions today, as he went to visit with the first lady at Walter Reed Medical Center after she underwent a successful operation yesterday. He returned here to the White House answering our questions, Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Boris, thanks very much.

Joining me now for his take in all this, retired Rear Admiral John Kirby who served as the spokesman for both the State Department and Pentagon during the Obama administration.

So, I'm wondering, Admiral, how big a deal is this? I mean, could it be a bit of brinksmanship? North Korea trying to improve their negotiating power?

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY (RET.), FORMER STATE DEPARTEMENT SPOKESPERSON, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Well, first, we have to admit that we don't actually know what's in Kim's mind. And so, we have to caveat everything by not having perfect knowledge and intelligence of what he's trying to do. I do not think that this will torpedo the summit. I don't think it was intended to.

I think -- I was just talking to Korea experts myself that this was a way for him to protest the exercises without doing so in a way that actually puts the summit at great risk. And he can punish South Korea, which he did, by canceling the meeting. And if you look at the language in that statement, it's pretty bellicose about the South. Not so bellicose about the United States.

So I think this was a way for him to get on record that he doesn't like these exercises, but not do it in a way that really takes everything down with it.

COOPER: Does it make sense to you that this is happening ostensibly over military exercises frankly that happen every year --

KIRBY: Right.

COOPER: -- and ones that Kim Jong-un seemingly, you know, seems flexible about earlier this year?

KIRBY: Right. Anderson, great question. And we have to look at not just what he did today, but what he didn't do. He didn't fire off a bunch of missiles.

Last year, at this time, when he did these two exercises, you remember, Anderson, he launched I think six or seven missiles into the ocean and was correspondently, you know, very bellicose in his rhetoric.

[20:05:03] He hasn't done that.

I mean, we've been doing Fall Eagle now for over a month. This exercise just started but we've been exercising. And there's been no reaction, it's been very mute, and he released three Americans in the midst of these exercises.

So we have to keep it in perspective, what he's not doing. And that's why I don't think he's really trying to torpedo this summit.

COOPER: North Korea says that the exercises are ruining the diplomatic mood. I'm not sure how one gauges that, but I'm not even sure really what that means.

KIRBY: Yes, I don't know either. I mean, again, this is typical for them. This is something that they've done before and they've, you know, reacted harshly. I don't know what he means by that in terms of mood. Clearly, I think what he's trying to say is that the exercises, which are designed in his mind to threaten him, are not in keeping with the spirit of diplomacy and moving towards peace.

And look, I mean, if you look at it from his perspective, you can kind of see. I mean, he views the United States as an existential threat. So, exercising American capabilities on the other side of the border, you can understand where he's coming from. We know that they're defensive in nature. But I -- again, I don't think he's trying to ratchet it up too high.

COOPER: It's also interesting the idea that the administration was caught off guard by this. It does give you a sense of the -- you know, it's not like there's a hot phone between the president and Kim Jong-un, as there was during the Cold War and the Soviet Union.

KIRBY: Yes, but. And I agree with you 100 percent, but Pompeo has now started to develop relationships. And one of the advantages of summits and negotiations, such as we learned with Iran, is you can open up back channels of communication. So, there were channels that could have been used here for them to protest things. That's why I think doing it in a press release the way they did was really meant more -- a bit of brinksmanship, a bit of showmanship, kind of slapping South Korea around and making it clear that he's not going into this summit anything other than clear-eyed.

COOPER: Yes. Admiral Kirby, thanks very much.

KIRBY: Sure.

COOPER: As we noted, we're being unpredictable is absolutely nothing new when it comes to North Korea. Joining us tonight is "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman, author of the book, "Thank You For Being Late: An Optimist Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations."

I spoke to him just before the broadcast.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Tom, with North Korea warning the U.S. over the fate of the summit, I mean, should anybody really be surprised that the road to this summit is not going to be an easy one?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, you know, Anderson, when you think about North Korea, you think, how many times have they sold this carpet of denuclearization? At least to three different presidents, I believe.

So, one would have been shocked if this hadn't happened. One would even be more shocked if the deal comes off, and one will be truly bowled over if they actually agree to a verifiable denuclearization plan. I've just never known where the bottom of the story was, but I keep coming back to the fact, they have sold this carpet at least three times before.

COOPER: Yes, this is -- we have seen this time and time again with the North Koreans. What do you think their calculus is?

FRIEDMAN: You know, it's really hard to know. They clearly are feeling some pressure.

If there is one meeting, Anderson, in the world, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall on, it would have been the meeting between Xi Jinping, the president of China, and Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea. They had two meetings now in the last month.

And you really have to wonder, what was Xi Jinping saying to him? Was he saying, hey, you've got to denuclearize, or was he saying, you know, president of North Korea, we love -- we love Korea so much, we always wanted there to be two of them. You're not going to do anything crazy, are you, like denuclearize and merge with the South?

So, the Chinese, I think, have very mixed emotions on this. They like the Americans out, but at the same time, they do not want a unified Korea on their peninsula. As we felt about Germany during the Cold War, China feels about Korea. They love them so much, they want there to be two of them.

COOPER: I'm wondering also what the calculus of Kim Jong-un is, or what their opinion is when they look at the United States. I mean, obviously, you've seen President Trump, you know, withdrawing from the Iran agreement, TPP, obviously making very bellicose statements, which a lot of people credit for getting Kim Jong-un to the table.

How do you see that?

FRIEDMAN: I would say you can draw one of two conclusions.

One is, my god, I mean, the Iranians struck a nuclear deal with him, and the guy welched on it. What's going to happen to me? I better be doubly careful. That's one direction he could go.

The other is if he's been watching Trump on China trade, the fact that Trump, you know, just over the weekend, on his own, tweeted that we have to worry about jobs in China now and we have to not sanction this Chinese company that violated in a really bad way our trade export laws, sending equipment to, I believe, North Korea and Iran.

And he might think Trump's a chump and that if I get in a room with him, he'll be so hungry for a deal to make history, he'll be so panting for a Nobel Prize, maybe I can outmaneuver him.

(CROSSTALK)

FRIEDMAN: Think about it, really, Anderson -- Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump negotiating in Singapore.

[20:10:05] What could go wrong?

COOPER: It is kind of stunning when you consider just how much kind of the visual of this is important to North Korea. Just the -- to be -- this is something that they have always wanted, to be one on one with the president of the United States. So for them, that's a great victory, whether or not anything comes out of it.

And I guess President Trump certainly likes a big show, who likes that big presentation, gets something out of it, even if, you know, the details that later are worked out don't really pan out.

FRIEDMAN: Here's the difference. Kim Jong-un can completely control the spin on the story when he goes back to North Korea. Ain't no CNN there. Donald Trump can't.

And if Donald Trump comes back empty-handed, I think he would be eviscerated not only by his opponents, but by some of his allies in the Republican Party.

COOPER: But even if there's a, quote/unquote, agreement after a day or two days of meetings between the two men, I mean, the details on something like that, that has to be worked out over weeks and weeks, with lots and lots of people and moving parts.

FRIEDMAN: Can you imagine the verification -- well, just think about the verification regime we put in place in Tehran, how complicated that was. How many months it took for our secretary of energy at the time, Ernie Moniz, a physicist, to work out and oversee the fine-grain details of that so there could be no cheating. Imagine what you would need in North Korea, an even less transparent country.

COOPER: It's also startling to hear the president of the United States call Kim Jong-un honorable.

FRIEDMAN: That doesn't bother me so much, Anderson. I mean, he's building him up. He's building up his ego. That probably comes out of some CIA report, how to soften him up. And Trump can be very good at that.

I mean, look, I want to be very clear, if he could somehow maneuver him into giving up his nuclear weapons in a verifiable way, that would be a wonderful thing. Wonderful thing for the world, great for America, and Donald Trump would deserve a Nobel Prize for that. I'm all for it.

But just, one has to really be skeptical, given, as I've said, how many times the North Korea has sold that carpet.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: We're going to have more of my talk with Tom Friedman in my next hour.

But, first, more breaking news. "The New York Times" just now reporting that both the Justice Department and the FBI are investigating Cambridge Analytica, that now-defunct political data firm that was accused of misusing the personal data from millions of Facebook users. I'll talk to one of the reporters from "The Times" who broke the story.

Plus, a federal judge rules that the special counsel's case against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort can proceed, a significant development. Details on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:16:13] COOPER: We have breaking news from "The New York Times" tonight. It is reporting that both the Justice Department and the FBI are investigating the now-defunct political data firm, Cambridge Analytica.

Now, you'll remember, the company worked both for President Trump's election campaign, as well as other Republican candidates in 2016. It's come under fire for allegedly misusing the Facebook data of millions of users. Matthew Rosenberg shares the byline on the story and joins us now on the phone.

So, talk to me about what you've learned about this investigation.

MATTHEW ROSENBERG, REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" (via telephone): It looks like it's in its early stages. We know that at least two DOJ prosecutors who specialize in financial fraud and an FBI agent, who we believe, deals in cyber crimes, went to London earlier this month to question at least one witness, possibly more.

And look, that speaks to a significant investigation. Prosecutors are not brought in for fishing expeditions. They're brought in to possibly build cases. People who have been questioned or contacted have been told -- all they've been told is that there's an open investigation involving Cambridge Analytica and associated U.S. persons, as they put it.

They're not clear on who exactly that is.

COOPER: Is it clear to you what the focus of the investigation is? I mean, what is the -- what's the allegation?

ROSENBERG: I mean, that's the thing. It's -- so officially, the Justice Department and the FBI just won't comment. Given the people involved and the fact they've also reached out to banks that did business with Cambridge Analytica, they seem to be looking to some financial issues.

The cyber kind of component would possibly -- there have been allegations of hacking and there is, of course, the harvesting of data, the use of the data, of how they obtained data from Facebook and how they used it. And this kind of runs parallel to another investigation that's going on in Britain by their national crime agency, which is looking into hacking, which is looking into destruction of evidence. And a whole range of kind of issues.

COOPER: Now, is this connected to the Mueller probe, at all?

ROSENBERG: That's not clear to us. We know that Mueller's -- people from Mueller's team questioned two Cambridge Analytica executives in December. We don't know what went beyond that. Mueller's team is obviously pretty tight-lipped. And exactly what the relationship here, if there is any, just isn't clear right now.

COOPER: And I understand the investigators have contacted Facebook as well?

ROSENBERG: They have. And look, I think I want to be clear. The people we've spoken to and Facebook don't appear to be targets of this investigation.

These are potential witnesses. It would be natural to be in touch with Facebook. The data was taken from them and they would know a lot about it and have a lot to provide and possibly add there.

COOPER: And in the introduction to you, we mentioned they did work for the Trump campaign and other Republican candidates. Do we know if the investigation touches either the Trump campaign or any campaign at all?

ROSENBERG: I -- so, that's also, you know, one of the big questions here. Look, the company was owned -- the U.S. people who own the company were Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah. Its vice president was Steven K. Bannon. You know, these guys have tremendous influence in Republican politics and any investigation for the company is -- they are going to be drawn into it.

COOPER: So, I mean, the kind of the bottom line in this hour, you know, and as you said, rightly, there's a lot that's still to be learned. The bottom line is Cambridge Analytica is certainly not out of the woods yet?

ROSENBERG: Not even close. I mean, this is the beginning of an investigation. There are prosecutors flying to other countries to question people. It just seems, you know, you can shut yourself down, and you can say, we can't do business because of all of the bad reputational things that have happened to us, but you're still going to have to contend with the law.

COOPER: Yes. Matthew Rosenberg, appreciate it.

More to come, we have more breaking news. A federal judge in the District of Columbia has just ruled the bank fraud trial against Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign manager, can proceed.

Now, that case, of course, brought by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, a different -- this is a different federal judge has ruled on this today, than the one in Virginia, who had assailed the Mueller investigation earlier this month.

[20:20:06] Judge T.S. Ellis said a parallel bank fraud case against Manafort wasn't really the point. The charges, he said, were really aimed at the prosecution or impeachment of the president.

CNN's Sara Murray now has more details.

So, what was the judge's ruling or reasoning for this ruling today?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, Manafort is basically trying to make the case that Mueller has overstepped his authority, that he shouldn't be bringing these charges against Manafort. And, you know, these are to do with financial crimes before Manafort was working for the campaign. And the judge was not at all impressed by this argument.

She pointed out, look, we know that Paul Manafort was in the upper ranks of the campaign. We know that he has ties to Russians. We know that he did lobbying work on behalf of Ukrainian politicians.

And so, in part of her opinion today, she wrote that the special counsel would have been remiss to ignore such an obvious potential link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That's just a taste of sort of how strong her ruling was. Now, as for Paul Manafort, he's still maintaining his innocence in all of these charges.

A spokesman for Paul Manafort put out a statement today saying Paul Manafort maintains his innocence and looks forward to prevailing in this matter. And as you pointed out, this is just one of the courts where Manafort is arguing.

COOPER: Right. So explain that, because it is a little bit confusing, as I talked about. The ruling comes on the heels of the other judge earlier this month questioning Mueller's authority to bring these charges. So, there's two cases -- there's two different courtrooms going on?

MURRAY: That's right. There are two different courtrooms where this sort of theater is playing out. This one was in D.C. and previously earlier this month, Manafort was making a similar argument in Virginia, again saying that Mueller has overstepped his authority.

And in this case, the judge seemed much more sympathetic to Manafort's argument, essentially going to prosecutors and saying, look, I think that you guys are just using this to go after President Trump, potentially to try to impeach him. I don't think you really care that Paul Manafort committed bank fraud, if that -- if that's what you're alleging here. I don't think you really care about these charges. We think this is all about getting after Trump.

Now, it's important to note that the judge in this case has not made a ruling yet, but there are starkly different tones in these two different courts where Manafort is trying to argue his case.

COOPER: Yes. All right. Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

Joining me now to talk about it, CNN Chief Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

Can you just explain to me why two courts? I mean, I know this is stupid, but why?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's a very unusual situation. The Mueller office has brought two cases against Paul Manafort, charging similar, but not identical crimes.

COOPER: And one in Virginia, and one in District of Columbia.

TOOBIN: One in Virginia and one in D.C.

COOPER: Why bring them in different places?

2TOOBIN: That is -- it's not clear to me. It's odd. I think it -- some of it has to do with the law of venue, about where the crimes took place. You can't bring a charge in a jurisdiction where the crime didn't take place. That seems to be it, although venue is sometimes something prosecutors can be a little flexible about.

But Manafort made essentially the same motion to dismiss each of the cases. One in Virginia, one in D.C., saying Mueller doesn't have the authority to bring this case. In the argument of the Virginia case, the judge said a lot of things that were unsympathetic to Mueller and sympathetic to Manafort. It didn't make a ruling, but made noises that were sympathetic to Manafort.

Today, the judge in Washington, Judge Jackson, she said, this case is fine to proceed to trial, completely rejected all of Manafort's arguments. That ruling is not binding on Virginia, but it certainly will be read by the judge in Virginia. And it is unusual to have judges in identical issues come up with opposite conclusions.

So, I think the Mueller office has to be not only pleased about the D.C. ruling, but --

COOPER: Whatever the impact --

TOOBIN: -- the effect on Virginia as well.

COOPER: So the bottom line, at least on the D.C. trial is, it's going to trial.

TOOBIN: Right. And I think that's very --

COOPER: Do we have -- is there a timeline on that?

TOOBIN: It's currently scheduled for this summer, but I -- you know, those tend to, once there's a trial date, the judges tend to sometimes be sympathetic to defense requests to delay it. There's also the possibility of one or both parties saying, this shouldn't go on during the campaign.

COOPER: So if the -- if the Virginia court, as well, goes along with what the D.C. court said, is it possible for Manafort to be battling -- will it continue to battle in two courts?

TOOBIN: Absolutely.

COOPER: So, can both trials run concurrently?

TOOBIN: No, they can't -- they can't run concurrently. The judges have to coordinate their schedules, given the same person, the same lawyers can't appear in both trials.

But it just underlines how difficult Manafort's situation is -- to pay lawyers for two sets of trials, both of which are complicated. And I think the real message of today is that it really increases the pressure on Manafort to plead guilty and cooperate. That's the real, you know, I think, end result the Mueller team wants.

Sure, they'll try this case if they have to.

COOPER: Which, in fact, you're agreeing with what the judge in Virginia is saying, which is the truth of this, it's not really these charges, it's getting him to flip?

[20:25:01] TOOBIN: That's right. But what was so odd about what Judge Ellis said in Virginia, which he did say, you know, you're just trying to get him to flip, that's why prosecutors bring cases all the time.

COOPER: That's what prosecutors do.

TOOBIN: Yes, that's what prosecutors do in the United States. They don't do it in other countries, necessarily. But our system is very much geared towards flipping people and trying to get them to cooperate. Judge Ellis seemed shocked by that. Judge Jackson in D.C. said, that's how things go.

COOPER: All right. So it goes.

Jeff Toobin, thanks very much.

Multiple Republican senators are now calling for a public apology for a White House aide's comments about Senator John McCain either from her or from the White House. Some of them met with the president today. The question is, did they actually bring it up to the president's face? We're keeping 'em honest, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Another day has gone by without the White House apologizing for an aide's statement about American war hero and long-serving Senator John McCain. The White House aide saying McCain's opinion on the president's pick for CIA director didn't matter because, quote, he's dying anyway. The senator, as you know, is at home in Arizona battling brain cancer.

There was a meeting scheduled today, a lunch with the president and Republican senators. It seems, though, no one spoke about McCain and the need for an apology to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Did the issue of Senator McCain come up at all during the lunch?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: No,

REPORTER: And how did you encourage the White House to have that staffer issue an apology?

MCCONNELL: No, the issue didn't come up.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Didn't come up.

Senator John Kennedy said the president talked for 45 minutes about, quote, quite an array of subjects, but not this one -- certainly not an apology.

And as you know, the White House aide, Kelly Sadler, called Meghan McCain to apologize, but has not apologized publicly. Now, a source told CNN that she had promised Meghan McCain that she would do so, but she's not. Neither has the president or anyone in the White House. In fact, they're trying to turn this into an issue of leaks and turn away from what an actually is an issue of just human decency -- one that no one would broach with the president today, even as Republican lawmakers are calling for the White House to do the right thing. Here is Senator Susan Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: The comment was denigrating and insensitive. John McCain is an American hero, he's a United States senator and he's a good friend of mine. The best way for this to be put to rest and it should have happened immediately would have been for the White House to issue a public apology to the entire McCain family.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Trump should, too, the President himself?

COLLINS: I think it would be helpful if the President made clear that those kinds of comments are not acceptable rather than criticizing the leaker.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: And this came from Senator Jeff Flake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: I don't understand it, why you just don't apologize and move on. That would be easier do. It wasn't the President making the statement, but I'm sure, if he asked her to apologize, she would. So I don't know why he hasn't. I really don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: We saw Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell talking about this. He actually went to Arizona over the weekend to visit Senator McCain, a statement from his office said McConnell didn't want to miss the change to tell McCain how much his friendship meant to him. Here is Mitch McConnell today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Does it bother you that, almost a week ago now, someone on the President's staff insulted one of your senior colleagues, John McCain, with this morbid joke. And then no one from the White House has apologized for it, even today as far as we understand?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, the person who said that should apologize, and should apologize publicly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So all three of those senators agree McCain deserves an apology and none of them brought it up in that meeting or no senators brought up in the meeting apparently with the President, say in front of the cameras. Crossing this President is not something many Republicans are willing to do even to defense with fellow Republican with a long record of service and brain cancer.

Joining me now is Tony Schwartz, who wrote "The Art of the Deal" with Mr. Trump. And he is a contributor to the new book, "The Dangerous case of Donald Trump." Tony, thanks for being with us.

It seems like -- I mean, we President Trump does not apologize, the Access Hollywood tape is the only really evidence of it. I've talked to him about. And he said, he doesn't ask forgiveness from God, he couldn't the case for doing that and he certainly doesn't issue public apologies. It seems like that filters down throughout the White House, that message?

TONY SCHWARTZ, CO-AUTHOR, "THE ART OF THE DEAL": Well, first of all I would imagine that he directly or indirectly made it clear, didn't want Saddler to apologize because it would reflect on him.

COOPER: And it's viewed as weakness?

SCHWARTZ: Without question, that is the heart of it. If you apologize you are wrong. Look, if you live in highly binary world, if your world view is, it's black or white, it's good or it's bad, if you are not good, you are bad.

COOPER: You are the winner or you're the loser?

SCHWARTZ: You win or you lose, all of these, then you only have one choice if you want to end up feeling that you are good. And that is the circumstances Trump always finds himself in because to admit and acknowledge whether it is him or anybody who works for him that might reflect on him that he has done something wrong is to admit that he is bad. That is his internal experience of it.

COOPER: It seems interesting me though, his idea of strength is so -- sort of cookie cutter, so -- I mean, it's almost cartoonish how he defines strength. And I assumed the definition of strength for him is not apologizing, part of that is never admitting you are wrong?

SCHWARTZ: I don't even think it's a calculation or analysis or an opinion. I think it is an impulse or an instinct that emotionally, psychologically he is incapable of it because it's shuttering to him to feel that he is wrong.

COOPER: Did you -- in all your time that you spent with him, with "The Art of the Deal," did you ever hear him apologize for something? SCHWARTZ: No. And it would stun me if he had. It is 30 years later and it is possible that he, no, I would be pretty confident that he never did. And he would be derisive if someone who did. His father didn't apologize.

COOPER: His father didn't?

SCHWARTZ: No. I mean his father was a black and white guy and he was if a mold of a Roy Cohn, they didn't particularly have a relationship. Roy Cohn who later became somewhat of surrogate father to Trump then who was clearly a mentor, his attitude was never apologized for anything. And Trump followed from his father to Roy Cohn to himself.

COOPER: And Roy Cohn, I mean, are you saying that Trump learned from Roy Cohn, either from actually involvement or just watching Roy Cohn. Because Roy Cohn was all about attack, attack, attach?

[20:35:00] SCHWARTZ: Yes. I do think he learned at his knee if you will. And also at his father's knee. The difference between Roy Cohn's attack, attack, attack and Donald Trump's and this is by no means to defend Roy Cohn, is that Roy Cohn was a very bright guy. And he did everything in highly calculated way, not in impulsive way.

COOPER: It was thought out, it was planned?

SCHWARTZ: Absolutely. He had figured out what worked. He was well- educated. He was just plain smart. And he made those choices. He thought it work. What he lacked as Trump lacks was any underlying set of values or principals. So there was no -- you know, he was unimpeded, both Cohn and Trump were unimpeded by guilt or shame.

COOPER: But with Trump, you're saying -- with the President, it's more gut.

SCHWARTZ: Oh, absolutely.

COOPER: Roy Cohn, it was more strategic --

SCHWARTZ: It is reactive. It's like almost as if I could imagine that night that Hollywood access story, the end of break and he was being surrounded by events (ph) and encourage to apologize and it would be like, he was feeling to himself like, oh they want to pull my teeth with no a anesthetic.

COOPER: Well, it's interesting because -- I mean, I think it was "The Times" reported that months ago that, the President was even raising the idea to people, friends of his that maybe that was not his voice on the "Access Hollywood" tape, which is just -- I mean, an extraordinary things?

SCHWARTZ: Yes. You know, it's so interesting that wonderful writer named Jonathan Chait, who maybe has even been on the show, who was written a book actually that I have somewhere here but he writes about morality. And what he says and I agree is that the impulse comes up. He calls it the elephant. The writer is the more thoughtful part of your brain. And the impulse comes up and it dominates, it comes out and then the brain ends up being used in the service of rationalizing what the impulse has cause you to do. So it's the other misuse and the ultimate misuse of the prefrontal cortex, but we all do it and Trump does it in extremis.

COOPER: And again to me, if somebody on the staff then apologizes, like he views that person as weak?

SCHWARTZ: It is not only that he views that person as weak, there's no question. And everybody in Trump's mine is either weak or strong. It's either rich or poor or it's either tough or wimpy. But it's also that person is always reflecting on him because the only person Trump sees at any given moment truly is himself. So everybody is a reflection of him for better or for worst. In this case if there would be an apology, it would be for worse.

COOPER: Tony Schwartz, fascinating. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

SCHWARTZ: Thank you.

COOPER: Coming up, President Trump today, at a memorial for fallen officers, he spoke about a border patrol agent who died in the line of duty, some Republicans saying that he was attacked. We'll have the latest what investigators believe what happened.

Also ahead, the new reason why Meghan Markle's father will reportedly missed the royal wedding. It is nothing to do with some paparazzi photographs that something more serious.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:41:47] COOPER: President Trump spoke at the Annual Peace Officer Memorial service today, an event honoring families of law enforcement authorities who died in the line of duty. It took pains to point out violent death of a border patrol agent last November.

There's something about he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Agent Martinez took immense pride and joy in serving his country as a border patrol agent.

He was extremely proud of what he did. Every day he would go to work and risk his life to keep America safe. He bravely confronted the cartels, the smugglers, the human traffickers, the gangs that threaten our communities.

One night last November, Agent Martinez died in the line of duty. It was horrific. It was violent. And he was brave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, Agent Martinez did risk his life every single day and did die in the line of duty. Exactly what happen, however still unclear? CNN's Ed Lavandera has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the darkness of a West Texas night last November, border patrol agent Rogelio Martinez and Stephen Garland were found severely injured in a culvert while patrolling an area near the remote town of Van Horn close to the U.S.- Mexico border.

Martinez suffered severe head injuries and died hours later. Garland survived but doesn't remember what happened.

It didn't take long for a sinister storyline to emerge. Agents with the national border patrol counsel, the union which has strongly supported President Trump claimed there was evidence suggesting the agents were savagely attacked by drug runners from Mexico.

CHRIS CABRERA, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: These agents didn't get clipped by a truck. They didn't get clipped by a car. They were attacked. It's just -- it's plain to see that they were attack.

LAVANDERA: Texas Republicans pushed the story even harder. The Governor and Senator Ted Cruz also described the incident as an attack. And President Trump used the moment to push for a border wall.

TRUMP: We lost a patrol officer just yesterday. And another one was brutally beaten and badly, badly hurt. And we talked about the wall. We're going to have the wall. It's part of what were doing. We need it.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): But the problem with the story is federal investigators don't believe the agents were attacked at all. And it appears to be some kind of accident.

(on camera) This is the culvert where the border patrol agents were found. It's just off of inner state ten where cars are flying by at high rate of speed and if they fell off of this and into the bottom here, it's about a ten-foot drop into a cement bottom.

(voice-over) Three months ago, CNN obtained an internal border patrol memo which said that even though it's not clear what happened that night, there was no evidence of a crime. The agents did not have defensive wounds and the only footprints at the scene belonged to the agents and first responders.

ANGIE OCHOA, AGENT ROGELIO MARTINEZ FIANCEE: Everybody, you know, they reassure me that, you know, they are going to get to the truth. They are going to get to the truth. But, I mean, here we are, weeks later and there are still no answers.

[20:45:16] LAVANDERA: With no clear answers, Rogelio Martinez's fiance tells CNN the ordeal is confusing and made worst by the differing explanations for what could've happened on that night in November. (END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: Ed Lavandera joins us now. I mean just horrible what happened to both of these officers. Where is the -- is the investigation ongoing? Is there going to be an answer?

LAVANDERA: It is still ongoing, but the latest information we have has really kind of pointed to this being some kind of accident. However, you know, investigators haven't been able to clearly pinpoint exactly what happened. Whether or not it was a passing car or some other kind of freak accident that happened out there in that remote area, we just don't know at this point. But they have said all along, and they have been saying very clear indications running on, they don't believe that there was anything out there at that scene that indicated any kind of foul play.

COOPER: All right. Ed Lavandera, I appreciate that. We'll continue to follow it up.

Up next, an update on how first lady Melania Trump is doing after her kidney procedure. Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us.

Also, breaking news on another surprise medical procedure, this one reportedly more serious in schedule for the father of Meghan Markle, just days before she's wed Prince Harry of Windsor castle.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:50:38] COOPER: President Trump visited the first lady at Walter Reed Medical Center this evening. It was his second visit to see her after she underwent successful treatment for a benign kidney condition on Monday. The first lady's office says that she is in good spirits.

Our Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins me with more insights.

Sanjay, the fact that the first lady is staying in the hospital for another two or three days, does that tell us anything?

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that's the biggest open question mark here, Anderson. I talked to several doctors who perform this procedure pretty regularly, even looked at some of the data in terms of how long people typically stay in after procedure like this, this embolization. And, you know, most patients go home the same day. It's an outpatient procedure for most patients. Some stay an extra day if they're worried about pain or some other problem, but to stay, you know, four days or so and which sounds like she'll be staying -- maybe staying is just unusual.

I just don't know what to make of it. I'm not hearing anything more from her office. It could be out of an abundance of caution.

COOPER: And this a dumb question, but how is a procedure different from a surgery?

GUPTA: Yes, it was interesting because people use these terms interchangeably and terms do matter here. A surgery is basically when you make an incision in the skin and you're actually going and examining, in this case, the kidney or an organ directly. With this procedure it's really kind of like a large I.V., Anderson, that goes into a blood vessel and then a catheter is basically threaded to the area right around the kidney. And through that catheter is where this embolization takes place.

COOPER: So when the first lady does leave Walter Reed, any idea base do you know what the recuperation process might be like?

GUPTA: My, guess, is that she is going to -- especially given that most patient go home the same day. When she leaves in a couple of three days from now, my guess is she's going to be feeling fine, up walking around, taking care of herself, no problems. There may be a little bit of soreness, still, sometimes from the procedure, but that's the type of soreness that is controlled just with some ibuprofen or some Advil or something like that.

COOPER: All right. Sanjay, thanks very much. We wish her the best.

GUPTA: Of course. Thank you.

COOPER: A surprise medical procedure that is reportedly expected tomorrow morning for Meghan Markle's father. TMZ is reporting that Thomas Markle, he told them he will undergo heart surgery to clear a blockage, repair damage and put a stent.

Now according to TMZ, Mr. Markle says, this is what will, in fact, keep him from walking his daughter down the aisle in Saturday at Windsor Castle when she marries Prince Harry.

CNN's Max Foster in Windsor joins us with the latest. Max, what do we know about the procedure that Meghan Markle's father is expected to have this week?

MAX FOSTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is what he told TMZ, the doctors will go in and clear the blockage, repair damage and put a stent in to where it's need. Clearly he's not going to be well enough after that operation on Wednesday to come here to Windsor to go the wedding.

So, we're back basically, Anderson, where we were last night that he isn't now coming to the wedding, even though we heard earlier we heard that he might possible do that.

COOPER: Right. I mean, there been multiple kind of narratives of course, the last 24 hours about why he won't be attending the wedding. So, just according to TMZ it is for this health reason.

FOSTER: It is. I think, you know, the problem he's created for himself here is, that you know, yesterday when you and I were talking, what I was told, and I believe this to be true, that Meghan Markle was desperately upset that her father had said that he wouldn't be able to come to the wedding.

So Harry, you know, as is his way, started blaming himself a bit for this. He feels that all of this pressure he's put on Meghan because of his profile caused all of this pain within the family. So he sent his people out to speak to correspondents like myself to try to send the message out to the media that they need to give Thomas Markle a break. Then we have the situation he's gone back to TMZ and said, "Actually, I've changed my mind, I am going to the wedding," and then again he's not going to the wedding.

So, there in the situation, well, I think actually frankly they've running out of patience with him. Obviously, the sympathy for his medical condition and the pressure he's under, but he can't keeps fueling the media machine, when they're trying to comment down on his behalf.

COOPER: So how is, A, how is this playing out with the public in Great Britain? But also do we know who is going to walk the bride down the aisle, because her father was supposed to, last I had heard?

[20:55:08] FOSTER: Yes, a very good question. I mean, I think, you know, I'm in Windsor, I've been here all week. Here there is a great deal of excitement about the wedding. They want to see the fairy tale unfold in the castle behind me.

So they have a lot of sympathy for what Meghan Markle is going through right now with just days to go until her wedding. And it's been thrown into chaos and she's obviously is very upset by it. She has to decide who is walking her down the aisle.

So a lot of people are talking about her mother Doria possibly doing that. Other people suggesting that it might be one of Prince Harry's friends, who is also friends with Meghan. Some people suggested it could be Prince William. Possibly she could go the Scandinavian route here, because if this happens in Scandinavia, then the bride and groom will go down the aisle together.

She's got to deal with that, it's a big question for her. It's quite unsettling for her. And then there's the question of who's going to give the speech on her behalf at the reception as well. But, you know, I'm getting the impression now that she's doing that speech. She's going to take control of that which might free up her mother to prepare for taking her down the aisle.

COOPER: Interesting. Max Foster. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

Quick programing note, I'm going to be traveling to England for CNN Special Coverage of the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Joining me for 360 on Friday night and I'll be live from Windsor for their special day starting 4:00 a.m. on Saturday morning, so set your alarm clocks. Get up early.

Up next, North Korea threatens to pull out of the summit with President Trump, what it has to do with South Korea when we continue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)