Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Giuliani: Mueller Tells Trump Team He Will Follow DOJ Guidance That A President Cannot Be Indicted; New Information Revealed About Infamous Trump Tower Meeting Questions Surround a Mystery Phone Call; New Yorker Magazine: Missing Files Motivated The Leak Of Michael Cohen Financial Records; American Actress Meghan Markle Set to Marry Prince Harry on Saturday. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 16, 2018 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: -- the President's lawyer Rudy Giuliani says he got an answer about that.
CNN Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash spoke with him. She joins us now. So explain what Giuliani had to say?
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, he told me that through a conversation that the Trump legal team had with the Mueller special counsel team, it was made clear orally, Giuliani said, that the special counsel is going to adhere to historical justice department guidelines. And what the guidelines say is basically that a sitting U.S. president can't be indicted. This goes back to the Nixon administration. It was reaffirmed in the Justice Department of the Clinton administration.
And this is something that even though there is that historical standard it has never been tested. It has never been brought before any court, obviously, it ultimately would end up getting to the Supreme Court because no justice department tried to indict a sitting president.
It was an open question whether or not Mueller would actually be the first to challenge it. If he felt he had enough incriminating evidence against this President that he would do that. We don't know the answer to that question whether he has incriminating evidence. But at least according to Rudy Giuliani, the Mueller team has told him you know what? We're going to adhere to the president. We are not going to go forward in any way shape or form with an indictment if it comes to that.
COOPER: But just to be clear this is what Rudy Giuliani said --
BASH: Exactly.
COOPER: -- was heard by someone on the Mueller team not Mueller himself, correct?
BASH: He wasn't clear as to whether it was Mueller himself or not. But what we also know from Gloria Borger talked to another source familiar with the legal strategy who said that this is -- and this is another thing Giuliani also suggested to me -- this is very much related to the notion of a potential interview because --
COOPER: Or a subpoena?
COOPER: Exactly. Because if the special counsel demands an interview that the Trump legal team things is out of bounds they might say, you know what? We're not going to do this. Go ahead subpoena us. Subpoena the President. And that is the situation -- another situation that has some precedent on the civil side but not on the criminal side, which this would probably be. And that this whole idea came up because the idea that the Trump team is trying to get across to the Mueller team -- they hope now they have this little piece of information in the back pocket is -- well, if you if you aren't going to indict the President then why would you need to subpoena for information.
COOPER: Right. If there is not a crime that's indictable --
BASH: Exactly.
COOPER: -- there is no reason for a subpoena or no reason for the President to respond to a subpoena.
BASH: Exactly. But the other thing to keep in mind is that indictment is a very -- is something very specific and obviously goes through the courts. When you talk about the President of the United States, the constitution also has another structure in place if there is a potential crime. And that is the United States has a representative, the articles of impeachment. So that is another reason why sort of the precedent -- really precedent standard has been that a President can't be impeached -- excuse me -- can't be indicted because if something is that bad, for example, if Robert Mueller finds something that he has to report on to his supervisor, which is the deputy attorney general and then they have to then report it to Congress as a matter of oversight, then you know if it gets to the point then it is the constitutional prerogative of Congress to then move on basically trying to get rid of the President and doing that with impeachment.
But we're far from that right now. We just want to know exactly what Robert Mueller has. And I can tell you so did the Trump legal team. And they are still also waiting for and they're hoping for this final discussion about a potential interview. They don't want one but they want to at least have the discussion to kind of move on and move off that issue.
COOPER: Yes. Dana Bash thanks very much. We'll going to discuss this with our panel a little bit coming up tonight.
We're also getting new insight into the now infamous Trump Tower meeting that Donald Trump Jr. had trying to get Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton, the Senate judiciary committee has released transcripts related to its investigation of the June 2016 meeting including more than 200 pages of Trump Jr. testimony.
Sara Murray joins with us now with the latest on that. So walk us through the headlines that came out of these documents today? SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, sure. I mean, these are thousands of pages of documents. They shed light on this June 2016 meeting as you pointed out in Trump Tower where Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner are meeting with this Russian lawyer. And they really show you how eager Donald Trump Jr. wants to try get dirt on Hillary Clinton and how poorly this meeting went.
It became pretty clear to these folks that when they went into the meeting this Russian lawyer launched into a conversation about Russian adoptions and people started getting disinterested or agitated according to testimony from some of the witnesses who were there.
[21:05:04] One of the witnesses said that Jared Kushner seemed agitated and then even infuriated when he realized that this was going to be about Russian adoptions. The other thing that Donald Trump Jr. is adamant about in his testimony is that he says, he never told his father, then candidate Donald Trump that he was going to take this meeting. He said, he never told him about sort of the underlying purpose what they thought they were going to be doing in this meeting, which is getting dirt on Hillary Clinton and said I would never bring my father sort of an unsubstantiated claim like that I would check it out first.
COOPER: There seemed to be a lot of things that Donald Trump Jr. couldn't recall?
MURRAY: Yes, that's right. And there are sort of many gaps in his testimony that leave a lot of wiggle room. And I'm sure special counsel Robert Mueller is looking at those gaps.
But one of the big ones is gets to this question of what did he tell his father about this meeting? Because even though he testified, look, I didn't tell my dad about the meeting beforehand there was a phone cull he made shortly after arranging the meeting it lasted about 11 minutes and it was to a blocked number.
Well, when Corey Lewandowski the former Trump Campaign Manager was testifying in front of a House panel he said that Donald Trump's primary residence has a blocked number. So this is one of the points that we have seen Democrats seizing on all day. Does that mean that Donald Trump Jr. called his dad and told him about the meeting? No, it doesn't mean that. But, you know, it is an area that the special counsel could be looking into process. And it's certainly an area that Senate Democrats have a lot more question about.
COOPER: All right, Sara Murray, thanks. We'll going to get into this with the panel tonight.
Joining me tonight, Jackie Kucinich, Michael Caputo, Maria Cardona, James Schultz, Joe Lockhart, and Anne Milgram.
Anne, just from a legal standpoint no smoking gun certainly for Donald Trump Jr. in the transcripts?
ANNE MILGRAM, FORMER NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, I agree. I don't think there is a smoking gun. You know, there are questions. Kushner was not part of the testimony before Congress. And so there are I think pieces that are missing. But it's sort of -- I think what's interesting about it is there's always been a question of what actually came out of that meeting. And it seems pretty clear from most of the people that were there that it was nothing substantive about Hillary Clinton. And I think that's one thing that's answered by the transcripts. But I agree there is no smoking gun.
COOPER: Do you find -- Jim Schultz, do you find it odd that Donald Trump Jr. wouldn't remember who he called right after the meeting to a blocked number?
JAMES SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: No, you're talking about a campaign. I mean, you make phone calls all day every day during campaign. It's craziness going on during a campaign. You're taking calls, you're making calls and the fact this blocked numbers, I mean, a lot of us have blocked numbers. So you might have a blocked number. But I think it's silly to make that immediate assumption that it was his father.
COOPER: Joe, what do you think?
JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think there is -- you don't know about this call. But I think it's a piece of the puzzle. I've worked in five Presidential campaigns. The idea that the candidate's son, the campaign chairman and the candidate's son-in-law took this meeting, you can't just pass it off as, oh they were just on a fishing expedition. There is something here. Mueller may know how all this puzzle pieces fit together. We don't know yet but the idea that this was just, oh we had a meeting and they told about it, adoption and we were, you know, we were board by is a little absurd.
COOPER: It's interesting Michael Caputo, I've always thought it odd that Donald Trump Jr. learns in this email that the Russian are supporting his -- the Russian government is supporting his father's campaign and that he never mentioned that to his father. I always thought that odd.
Maggie Haberman had an interesting point in the last hour which was it might not be that odd knowing the relationship between Donald Trump Jr. and his father is for him not to go to his father unless there was something that he won out of a meeting. That there was something positive to report that it's not necessarily the relationship that you go -- he would go to his father with something that was just inconclusive?
MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE: Well, when I was working with the President, I would never take something unsubstantiated to him it's a waste of his time. And he didn't like it. I would imagine nobody knew that better than his own children who grew up with that attitude in their father.
I always found this meeting to be a bad idea. I always knew that it needed to be investigated all the way down to its genetic code. I think we're there now and I think we found out that there is nothing there. I mean it's -- it was a bad look, it was probably a bad idea. But now we know. And even though the special counsel might have some more information on it I don't think it's going to end up going anywhere.
COOPER: So Maria if it was just a bad idea for a meeting, what do you make of the reporting about what happened on Air Force one or the President putting out the statement about it being about adoption?
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That I think is what surrounds the issue that I think just strains credulity here which I think, there's a couple things, first of all the phone call and I don't --
CAPUTO: He is ordering pizza.
CARDONA: Yes, right, exactly to a blocked number.
MILGRAM: Really --
CARDONA: Right, exactly, top secret pizza there.
COOPER: That place rouse is up there.
CARDONA: Exactly. I don't think anybody really believes that he didn't tell Donald Trump about this. Because you can't tell me that in the fight of his life, in a campaign that he thought he was going to lose against Hillary Clinton, if you find out that a foreign governor wants to help your campaign --
[21:10:08] COOPER: Government?
CARDONA: Foreign government wants to help your campaign and has potentially incriminating dirt on your opponent. I'm sorry if I was the son and my father was running I probably would tell him. Especially if he is saying, oh he didn't really know about how these things. He didn't really know about how campaigns worked. I don't think anybody believes that he would not be the first to pick up the phone and tell his father, this is what happened or this is what didn't happened --
CAPUTO: So you would expect him to pick up the phone and call his father and say, we took this meeting and she came off with just a bunch of Magnitsky Act stuff and then frustrated all of them and nothing happened?
CARDONA: Well, first of all, I don't believe that Donald Trump didn't know about the meeting to begin with.
JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYS: That's my question.
CARDONA: Yes.
KUCINICH: Did Donald Trump know about the meeting?
CARDONA: Exactly.
KUCINICH: -- of that blocked number, we found this out today as well. There were logs to this mystery blocked number. Hey, it's a mystery to us. I would imagine that a blocked number is not going to stop -- CARDONA: Right.
KUCINICH: -- Bob Mueller from figuring out how who the calls were to.
CARDONA: Which is why then, he would then call his dad and say, hey, by the way nothing really came of this and I'm pissed off because I thought I was going to get dirt on Hillary Clinton --
CAPUTO: I don't know what planet you guys live op this is all speculation, we have no facts here.
KUCINICH: There are two things that -- there is one thing not speculation. Two days after Donald Trump Jr. had the first call I think it was June 6th to the blocked number Donald Trump did say in a campaign speech was talking about a big reveal some information that was coming out. Then I believe nothing really came out.
COOPER: Right, he didn't follow up?
KUCINICH: He didn't follow up.
COOPER: Joe, is that the kind of thing?
LOCKHART: Yes, I think what strains credibility a little bit today is this idea that no one would take something to Donald Trump that wasn't substantiated. Birtherism. He entered the political fray in 2016 by saying Barack Obama wasn't born in America. Unsubstantiated claim is his stock in trade.
SCHULTZ: Didn't come from his son.
LOCKHART: So the idea that his son wouldn't take something that he heard or that he retweeted is ridiculous.
MILGRAM: I think there is one other thing also which is that we know that there is this incident on Air Force One where they're trying to figure out how to write the statement. We know the first -- the statement that Trump writes is inaccurate. And there has to be a reason why they're falsifying the statement or there's scrambling to come up with an excuse for the meeting. It could be that they were looking for the dirt before the meeting. It could be that there was something substantive in the meeting. But, you know, there is no reason to have that kind of interaction if there is no issue. And so that's the question I still have in my mind.
COOPER: Jim, you don't buy that?
SCHULTZ: No, look, I think good staff work is you run things to the ground, you make determinations, you make recommendations for the campaign manager, the fact that something would get to the candidate every time, son, father relationship aside --
KUCINICH: You're talking --
SCHULTZ: Hold on --
KUCINICH: I was just going to say --
LOCKHART: Example of good staff work in the Trump campaign or in the White House --
CAPUTO: Well, come on there was plenty of good staff work in that campaign. It wasn't, you know everywhere but -- I mean, and it probably it wasn't in meeting --
COOPER: But my understanding, though of the world within Trump Tower during that time was people coming and going, stepping in doors. I mean it wasn't as if it was a locked down campaign. The idea that --
SCHULTZ: That's all campaigns are. All campaigns are chaos. That's what they are. The fact that there is --
COOPER: But not every campaign you don't have the candidate coming out and saying that one of his opponent's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination or involved with Castro. I mean, this wasn't unusual campaign.
CARDONA: So it's either chaos or it's an organized campaign where people only go to candidate with substantive issues --
SCHULTZ: No, no, no there can be chaos at the staff level but you have to run things to their ground and there's no way everything gets to the candidate.
CAPUTO: I was there.
CARDONA: Yes, but what I'm arguing is that this particular thing would definitely get to the candidate if the candidate is Donald Trump and if the dirt -- they're promising him would be on Hillary Clinton.
CAPUTO: I make your way off base making that kind of assumption. I sat in that building, I worked to Trump Tower --
CARDOAN: You don't know that.
CAPUTO: It was an environment where a lot of things were moving, a lot of things were happening. And I can tell you that I've been on dozens and dozens of campaigns. I've never sat in a campaign and got so much dirt on our opponent coming across the transom. We had a guy from Haiti sitting in front of Trump Tower where the post of board, begging campaign staffers to take the stuff to the President. It came in like flowing like water. And this was just one of those meetings.
COOPER: All right, coming up, can a sitting President be indicted more about what Rudy Giuliani said about it and what he said the legal team told the President's legal team.
Also, new reporting tonight about, who released the financial records showing that Michael Cohen received payments from various companies and why this person says that they released those records.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:18:16] COOPER: More on the breaking news we told you about at the top of the hour, President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani is telling CNN's Dana Bash that Robert Mueller team has said, they believe they cannot indict a sitting President based on long standing Department of Justice guidelines.
Back now with the panel.
Anne, we should point again this is Rudy Giuliani saying we don't know for a fact this is what Mueller's team has actually said. And according to the various reporting it didn't come from Mueller himself. Is this true that this is -- I mean, it's true this seems to be longstanding Department of Justice guidelines. Does that mean this is iron clad?
MILGRAM: I mean, we have talked about this before. I think If Robert Mueller will absolutely follow the United States Department of Justice guidelines. So I have no question in my mind that that is the rule of the Department of Justice. Every prosecutor is bound by it. Mueller will follow the rules. He is appointed by the deputy attorney general.
COOPER: So does that mean -- which it seems like the Trump team hopes it means or believes it means that you won subpoena somebody or won need to respond to the subpoena if there is no underlying crime that can be indicted?
MILGRAM: I don't think it means that at all, right? I think, they've drawn actually what I think is almost the opposite conclusion that I would draw from it. So to me, you know, they're saying we can't charge the sitting President. That's the rule of the Department of Justice. But they're still conducting a criminal investigation. The deputy attorney general has asked them to conduct. He was acting the attorney general in this case, this criminal investigation.
COOPER: Also a counterintelligence investigation?
MILGRAM: Yes. And so there are couple of things to remember. One is that, they can still investigate and gather information on crimes that were committed. And there is a big allegation here that members of the Trump campaign were active with Russia. And so they can absolutely subpoena Donald Trump. I mean, he is a witness a potential witness to all the different things. Whether or not it's specific to his obstruction -- the obstruction claim alone or to all the other things that would have transpired he can be brought in on all of that.
[21:20:05] COOPER: Joe Lockhart, I mean, you work for President Clinton obviously during the --
LOCKHART: I wish I didn't know as much as I do about this for obvious reasons. I think the kind of spin I've heard from the pro Trump people today, which is inaccurate, is well if he says he is not going to indicting him it means he doesn't have a lot. That's an absolutely wrong conclusion. He could have everything and he wouldn't seek to indict him. He can indict him -- he can name him as an indicting conspirator like they did with Nixon. More likely the higher the level of charges the more evidence of the case they put together he'll go to Congress. That's the traditional route. No one has tested this. And I trust the legal opinion here that Mueller is not in -- you know, is not in a place to test it. But it doesn't mean anything about the case he has put together.
COOPER: From a legal standpoint how do you see it.
SCHULTZ: It's an open question we said this time and time again as to whether a subpoena can be affected upon the President in a criminal matter. We have seen it happened in a civil matter. But it's never been tested in a criminal matter. And you know, there has been -- there have been subpoenas issued as it relates to documents but not for verbal testimony. So that's an open question. So if the President doesn't agree to be interviewed does the lawyer say, look we're not providing him for interview then it opens the door to a subpoena. And at that point in time that's something that will probably go to the Supreme Court no question.
CAPUTO: You know, I got to tell you what I take away from this is what I said now for months, the President should take this -- and the President's team should take this as a signal that it's time to start working the jury. It's time to start to using the charm offensive and talking to the people who would sit and preside over his impeachment.
Work with House members, start inviting Mueller for dinner, spend a little bit more time with them, work the jury. It's one -- it's a very unique situation. We can't to that in American jurisprudence but the President can do it in a situation with impeachment if he starts trying to make better friends with Congress he stands a chance of with standing it if we laws the House in November.
SCHULTZ: And Rudy Giuliani made a good point today, like, what's the purpose of the interview? Right, if you have all the information you need, you have got documents, you've got witnesses, can you get that information from other folks, right? Can you get the information from the documents? And I think that's what the Trump legal team will start making that argument that you don't need to interview him because you have all this information. You have 1.4 million documents.
COOPER: Isn't the counter argument that if intent is so important that how do you find intent. There may be intent voice in documents but don't you have to interview the person to find out what the intent was?
SCHULTZ: Yes, but if we've said that there's -- that the President can't be indicted you're not getting the President's intent, the President's state of mind when he said certain things because the President is not a target of investigation. And not going to be indicted. I think I agree with Anne that Mueller is going to be very cautious, listen, he is going to follow the justice department memo.
CARDONA: But see, I don't think you're taking away from this -- I agree with Anne I think you're taking away from it exactly what you want and what the Trump people want to takeaway from it which is if Mueller said that they can't indict the President that doesn't mean they are not going to find criminal wrongdoing. I mean, he could very well find the highest level of criminal wrong doing but not turn it over to an indictment because he is a sitting President.
SCHULTZ: But there is an argument to be made in court. And I understand what you are saying and that's not my argument. There will be an argument made in court that if a subpoena is issued but it should be quashed because if the purpose of this is to get the state of mind of the President to see whether there is any criminal intent, then you know what's the purpose of that --
(CROSSTALK)
LOCKHART: I think ultimately this will go to the -- ultimately it will go to the supreme court. But the political question is the optics of the President of the United States tying the courts up for the next year or two to cope himself from going in and telling the truth to the prosecutor are very bad political optics.
KUCINICH: And in the meantime we could see Congress change hands. And that would be -- when you talk to Democrats most of them are not talking about impeachment because they know that the voters don't want to hear about that. And don't really -- they don't have to go through it they don't want to go through it. That said if let's say Mueller hands the recommendations down to Congress. That's not impossible.
COOPER: Go ahead, Anne.
MILGRAM: The other thing, just quickly, to point out is that the President not being able to be indicted actually means to me that he is so much more likely to be subpoenaed and to have to answer that subpoena. Every American has to answer a subpoena. The argument has been the President is unique and that there are all the reasons why we are concerned about him as the President being a potential target in a criminal investigation. Now we're saying he is not going to be indicted. So there is less jeopardy and there is even more reason that he should have to provide any type of evidence that he has.
[21:24:50] COOPER: Interesting. We'll going to take a quick break.
Up next, there's more breaking news how do the financial records about Michael Cohen's shell company got out or his limited liability company got out. Tonight the New Yorker says that they know who released them and why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: There is more news breaking tonight. Tonight we're learning about how and why records got out showing that Michael Cohen's shell company, the limited liability company, essential -- what was it called -- essential consultants I guess the one he created to facilitate the payments to Stormy Daniels also received payments from several companies. In the New Yorker Ronan Farrow reports that a law enforcement official is the one who leak the confidential documents. This official according to the reporting grew alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen's financial activity in a government database. The official worried that the information -- he says that he was -- that they were -- he or she was concerned that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents, again this is Ronan Farrow reporting in the New Yorker.
Back now with the panel.
Just from a legal standpoint, I mean it's -- Jim, it's illegal to release these documents?
SCHULTZ: Sure. And it's inconceivable that someone would be allowed to do that, right. Just because they feel like it's not getting to law enforcement. All of a sudden you're having an employee of -- law enforcement employee all of a sudden just release this --
[21:30:06] COOPER: According to the reporting this person said that it's not common. In fact, it's unheard for these documents not to be in the government database. And the fact that two key documents which were the -- I believe the SARS were not there. I guess they were concerned there was some sot of a cover-up, the counter argument to it is it's possible Mueller's team according to Ronan reporting in experts he talk to it's possible that Mueller's team basically took those out of the database for reasons of, you know --
SCHULTZ: So that employees gets to make a decision that is a crime to release this publicly? Just doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.
CAPUTO: I say lock him up whoever it is. Lock him up, these leaks have been going on too long. This is a law enforcement official doing this. I mean and the more he talks in the media the more he starts working with information, the closer they get to him. I think he should pack up his toothbrush and get ready to go.
COOPER: Anne, how serious is this?
MILGRAM: I think it's serious. We talk about it last week. They were putting Michael Cohen's personal banking information everywhere. And it's up to the investigators and the people behind closed doors to figure out if a crime is committed. That kind of information shouldn't be made public. And so the thing that I find troubling about this is that let's say he thought that two were missing. First of all, it's possible that Mueller's team or somebody else pulled them aside. Second, there are other ways to handle potentially missing suspicious activity reports.
COOPER: What other ways?
MILGRAM: You would go to the base. You could go to the head of the department. You could go the inspector general of the department. And you could write an anonymous letter to the inspector general or writ a named letter. I mean there are mechanism and so this law enforcement officer obviously decided that they -- those would not work. But this is a pretty -- this is a gigantic leap to decide to put someone's personal banking information in the national news.
COOPER: Um-hum.
CARDONA: So what will happen to him do you think?
MILGRAM: Well, I mean, you know, it is a criminal -- it's always a criminal to leak a suspicious activity report. And so I suspect that there will be an investigation at a minimum the inspector general is already investigating but it's a serious question. I mean, Michael Cohen is the subject of a criminal investigation. But none of this should be public.
LOCKHART: But if you put aside -- and I'm not going to defend someone leaking something -- that one of the possibilities you mentioned is this was taken and put aside for the special prosecutor, the other possibility is very alarming.
Now, you are getting into the Nixonian era where potentially someone is using the levers of power to obstruct justice. That's why this is -- it's an interesting story now. We need to know which one it is. We don't know now.
KUCINICH: Because you go from whistle blower -- from leaker to whistle blower.
LOCKHART: Yes. And it's a whistle blower. And remember if you look back -- and it's the oldest cliche in the book but it's rarely the crime. It's when you start using the instruments of government to cover up the crime is where people get caught. And it's the oldest rule in politics and very few people in politics follow it.
SCHULTZ: But you don't go from leaker to whistle blower because there are rules in place and laws in place to prevent this kind of information from making its way to the public. So the way to do that -- the way to do that is go to the inspector general, which are independent.
KUCINICH: I hear what you are saying.
SCHULTZ: They're not political folks.
KUCINICH: No, I hear what you are saying. But if they -- if you are rate that this person should have gone to the inspector general. But if they think that these protocols aren't being followed and maybe there is no one they could trust.
COOPER: It's also interesting as soon as some documents were released by Michael Avenatti you had companies coming forward and saying actually, yes, we did this, which they hadn't done before that, you know, AT&T.
CAPUTO: Why would they. They didn't have a reason -- they didn't have a requirement to disclose it. They're hiring a consultant. The fact of the matter is this is -- I'm guessing -- this is a never Trump guy inside the Department of Justice, right? And the leaks that come from the Department of Justice over and over again that the leaks are coming from across this administration, the fact of the matter is if he thinks today's Department of Justice would be working on behalf of the President to block information about his lawyer that's hilarious, and this Department of Justice?
COOPER: But would it be the Department of Justice who had access to this or the treasury department?
LOCKHART: Treasury.
COOPER: Treasury.
CARDONA: Can we just sit back for a moment and look at what we have been talking about in the last three segments. The first segment was about Donald Trump Jr., the Trump meeting, the things that he disclosed that were not true about the Trump meeting. The press release that the President helped write that misguided at the very least and a huge lie at the very worst.
The second segment we talked about, you know, was about this whole other mess. This segment is about Michael Cohen. The things that we are talking about is all centered around the scandals that this President and his administration and his family started when they came into office, or frankly started during the campaign.
[21:35:04] This is a President of the United States that campaigned on that he was going to be you know so much better, that you can't elect the other person because imagine how many scandals there would be if Hillary Clinton was in office.
SCHULTZ: I'm happy to debate tax reform regulatory reform all the good things, right?
CARDONA: Right, but you know why you can't --
SCHULTZ: Well, I'm happy to talk about -- the total pipeline, all the good things, the jobs report. All of those things weekend debate that all night long.
CARDONA: You can't, because the President of the United States the from the moment he went on to the scene, on to the campaign scene he has not been able to either follow the law to tell the truth, and to be you know civil and to be somebody who was actually fit for the presidency.
COOPER: Anne just on a factual, did you know how many people would have access to these kinds of documents in the treasury department?
MILGRAM: Well, thousands of law enforcement agents can access them.
COOPER: Thousands.
MILGRAM: I mean, they're basically provided to local law enforcement. So agents throughout the country can access them. CAPUTO: Can thousands take them out?
MILGRAM: No, I mean, the ability to take out or remove would be extraordinary.
COOPER: If anybody actually -- I mean, assume it's all on a computer database if anybody actually accessed them and tried to print them up or something I would imagine there would be some sort of a record?
MILGRAM: There is a record. There's no question there is a record. And remember these are just suspicious activity reports.
COOPER: It doesn't mean a crime has been committed?
MILGRAM: Exactly. Any time you have a transaction over $10,000 or anything that seem unusual for an account these things get flagged.
COOPER: All right, everybody thanks very much.
Coming up next, a talk with the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who testified behind close doors today before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:40:27] COOPER: A lot to talk about tonight with the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Director Clapper appeared before members of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed session prior to the committee's release of that report which flatly states there was Russian interference in the 2016 election. Designed said, the committee's top Democrat to help Donald Trump.
There is also the back and forth about the latest developments with North Korea. Director Clappers joins us now.
So Director, this obviously a closed door hearing I'm not sure how much you can say about what you talked about. But can you say what they wanted to know and what you think about the conclusion they came to?
JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, first, the hearing was right after they voted out Gina Haspel at a committee 10-5 to advance her nomination to the floor of the Senate for confirmation as director of CIA. The purpose of our hearing -- I say our, it was John Brennan, even Mike Rogers who still on active duty but no longer director of NSA and myself.
Jim Comey was traveling so couldn't be there. And what the purpose was to kind of round out or complete the phase of their investigation, particularly as it pertain to the intelligence community assessment that we put out on the 6th of January of 2017.
And obviously it was very gratifies that they agreed with our findings and also that they substantiated the analytic integrity and trade craft that was employed in the generation of the intelligence community assessment. So it's very gratifying, it was done on a bipartisan basis for a cordial and collegial. And we had quite a bit of discussion.
COOPER: Yes.
CLAPPER: Primarily, I think a lot of questions about certain decisions we made about how we handled -- put together the ICA as well as the rationale for how we handled the dossier.
COOPER: The ICA is the Intelligence Community Assessment. I also want to ask you in terms of North Korea it's now threatening to cancel the summit if the U.S. insisting on pushing it, "into a corner on nuclear disarmament." You've been involved in North Korean negotiations you were there. Is this just brinksmanship, a negotiating tactic or is this something we've seen before from the North Koreans?
CLAPPER: Yes, so I think this is familiar behavior on the part of the North Koreans. This administration is learning what past administrations had learned about the North Koreans. They are prickly sensitive, opaque and unpredictable.
And I think this is -- you know, we're going to -- two steps forward one step back sort of thing. I do think that it points up their great sensitivity about exercises, particularly air exercises. And that as I saw when I was there, very high degree of paranoia and the siege mentality and particularly concerned about aircraft systems.
And I might point out with respect to denuclearizing the nuclear peninsula. And my comment here is we need to careful what we ask for. Because denuclearization in their mind could apply two ways, meaning one thing they really fear are B-1s, B-2s and B-52s. And so if they insist for example, for us is to remove the nuclear umbrella that has protected the republic of Korea for decades and not allow aircraft or we have to agree not to allow those kinds of aircraft either to be on the peninsula or in any operational proximity to it. And I have an idea -- I don't know this of course -- that President Xi may have counseled Kim Jong-un when they meet, when this fact because that certainly serves Chinese interests as well.
COOPER: I want to ask you something about former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said today in a speech to graduating cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. I just want to play it for us viewers to some of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REX TILLERSON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.
A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not. What a fact is and is not.
(END VIDEO CLIP) [21:45:03] COOPER: It's pretty stunning to hear Rex Tillerson a former Secretary of State saying that. I just wonder what goes through your mind when you listen to what he said?
CLAPPER: Well, I thought it was very compelling and striking -- I agree with you -- stunning that hear a former cabinet member -- senior cabinet member in the Trump administration would come out say that. He is very circumspect about it and didn't name any names.
COOPER: Right.
CLAPPER: But he is exactly right to point that out. And if we lose sight of the truth in this country we are in serious trouble. And I also comment that I thought the venue he chose, Virginia Military Institute which is a duty honor country kind of institution was a very appropriate.
COOPER: I mean, of all the people that left this administration why do you think Tillerson is the only one to say something like this?
CLAPPER: Well, I don't know. You know, I could speculate that it may have had something to do with the way he was treated, the way he was let go. But I think he is a principled man. It strikes me. I don't know him but he strikes me that way. And I think he has had time to contemplate what he experienced and what the dangers as he saw it posed by loss of sight on what is true and what isn't.
COOPER: Yes, I saw them up close. Director Clapper, always good to talk to you, thank you very much.
CLAPPER: Thanks, Anderson.
COOPER: Up next, we're just three days away from the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Tonight, what you may not know about the bride, the American actress and how she may change the British monarchy?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:43] COOPER: This Saturday, the royal wedding of Prince Harry and his bride Meghan Markle will be a day of celebration, certainly in England and around the world. But as we have been reporting, the bride's father, Thomas Markle will not be there at least as of now.
He says that it has nothing to do with the staged photos for the paparazzi. Instead he told TMZ that he underwent heart surgery today and he'll be staying in the hospital a few more days. It is unclear at this point, who will walk the bride down the aisle at Windsor Castle.
Tonight CNN's Jason Carroll gives us some insight on the American actress, who will become the newest member of the British royal family.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Meghan Markle's life began here in Los Angeles, it's the city where she was born. Her mother, Doria, a social worker is African-American and her father Thomas, an Emmy Award Winning lighting director is white. Even at not early age growing up in Los Angeles, Markle started showing early signs of speaking up about issues that would later help define her as an adult, namely her biracial identity and gender equality.
MEGHAN MARKLE: I don't think it's right for kids to grow up thinking these things, that just mom does the right thing.
CARROLL: Markle was offended by an ivory dish washing detergent commercial because it focused on women doing housework.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Women are fighting greasy pots and pans' --
MARKLE: And I said, wait a minute, how could somebody say that?
CARROLL: So that then, 11-year-old Markle wrote to Procter & Gamble.
MARKLE: So I was wondering if you would be able to change your commercial to people all over America.
CARROLL: Here is the letter worked. Procter & Gamble changed their commercial. Around that same year Markle took a stand on her racial background. She told ELLE magazine while in class she was asked to check a box for the census Caucasian or black.
She wrote, my teacher told me to check the box for Caucasian, because that's how you looked, Meghan. Markle refused, her father later telling her to draw her own box.
(on camera) Markle's parents eventually enrolled her at Immaculate Heart, it's a private all girls middle school and high school. And some of her teachers here still have fond memories of her.
MARIA POLLIA, MARKLE'S FORMER TEACHER: My first thought actually was, he is so lucky.
CARROLL: Maria Pollia was Markle's theology teacher. She talked about Markle wanting to volunteer at a soup kitchen in downtown L.A.'s skid row and the advice she offered to help Markle overcome her fear of volunteering in a dangerous neighborhood.
POLLIA: You need to simply put the needs of others above your own fears. And Meghan says that she's remembered that conversation ever since.
CARROLL: Markle ended up volunteering on skid row for years. She also performed in school plays.
This rare footage is from her sophomore year solo as little red riding hood in the production of "Into The Woods."
Markle went on to Northwestern University where she continued her love of drama. She double majored in theater and international studies, but acting was her passion. Once back in Los Angeles, she landed minor guest roles in shows like CSI New York before being cast as a regular on the USA drama Suits in 2011.
MARKLE: I don't care who knows.
CARROLL: Shortly after the show's launch, she married long-time boyfriend film producer Trevor Engelson, they divorced less than two years later.
In 2016 a mutual friend of Markle's and Prince Harry set them up on a blind date.
PRINCE HARRY, MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY: We met once then twice back to back two days in London. It was I think about three, maybe four weeks later that I managed to persuade her to come and join me in Botswana.
CARROLL: The two bonded while camping in Botswana, and after about a year and a half of courtship came the proposal.
MARKLE: It was so sweet and natural and very romantic. He got on one knee.
HARRY: Of course.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was it an instant yes from you?
MARKLE: Yes. As a matter of fact, I could barely let you finish proposing. I said, can I say yes now?
CARROLL: Markle has since become a household name, a fashion icon, style watchers closely eyeing every look. Not all has been well. English far-right tabloids have attacked the 36-year-old because she is American, divorced and biracial.
Prince Harry and the palace have defended Markle and called for an end to the public abuse of her and her family. Markle has won the hearts of millions, including the heart of the one that matters most.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
[21:55:13] COOPER: Jason, if her father won't be walking her down the aisle, do we know who will?
CARROLL: Well, it's a very good question, Anderson. You know what's been going on with her father. It was off, then it was on, then it's been off again. There was been some thought that perhaps Prince Charles could walk her down the aisle. There's been others that have been saying perhaps her mother would do her the honors. What is clear is that the people who are closest to her are boy her side at this point. Her mother flew into town. One of her closest friends Jessica Mulroney, her friend from Toronto, she is here as well. These are the people that have been closest to her, throughout all of this and they continue to be with her at this time.
COOPER: All right, Jason Carroll, thank you very much. I appreciate it. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: A quick programming note, I'm going to be traveling to England for the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, I'll be reporting live from Windsor at 8:00 p.m. Easter this Friday on 360. While you enjoy your tea and crumpets, join me and the rest of CNN team for live coverage of the wedding festivities at the Windsor Castle starting at 4:00 a.m. Eastern on Saturday morning. I'm not sure if you have tea and crumpets at 4:00 but why not.
Thanks for watching, time to hand it over to Don Lemon, CNN Tonight starts now.
