Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

A Year of Mueller Time; Team Trump Pounds Away At Mueller Investigation; President Trump Still Planning Summit Reassures and Warns Kim Jong-un; Man in New York Doesn't Want to Hear Spanish; Wedding Sparks Conversation about Race and Royalty. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired May 17, 2018 - 21:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:00:19] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Happy Mueller-versary or not in the case may be in the year that Robert Mueller is been investigating the Russian matter and matters arising from it. He's wrapped up quite a record in that largely out of the public eye in that same year the President of the United States surrogates and supporters have done whatever they can to turn it into something nefarious, something suspicious, something shadowy, in the President's own words this morning something disgusting.

We will talk about all of that tonight starting with CNN's Kaitlan Collins, at the White House. Kaitlan, tell us about the President, you know, he let off a lot of steam all of a sudden this morning?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, John, he seems to be seething, and though aides are insistent that the President isn't distracted by the Russian investigation. He actually does seem quite distracted. Just this morning alone he sent out three tweets marking that one-year anniversary. One of them saying congratulations, America, we are now into the second year of the greatest witch hunt in history. And there is still no collusion and no obstruction. Then he adds the only collusion was that done by Democrats who are unable to win an election despite the spending of far more money.

So the President there, John, relitigating the election of course saying that Democrats were the ones spending more money regarding collusion and all of that, does very much seem to be on the President's minds, John.

BERMAN: What was the White House response when they were asked about what the President had to say?

COLLINS: That's it. Exactly, the White House is still being asked questions about this as well. They're saying the President isn't distracted. They're not distracted but during the briefing today, the Press Secretary Sarah Sanders is asked several question about Robert Mueller. Here is one of those to CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Why does the White House still believe it's a witch hunt? And why did he cancel his news conference this afternoon, which was originally set for 3:00 with the NATO Secretary?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Different topics. But the President knows that there was no collusion in the campaign and he has been quite clear about this. It's gone on for over a year. They found no evidence of collusion and still strongly believe that it's a witch hunt. I'm not sure how we could be any more clear and certainly not sure how the President could be any more clear about his beliefs in his opinion.

In terms of a press engagement, the President will have press at his event here shortly, which is why we're going to have to keep it quick and short today and likely take a few questions at that event.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: So that last remark there, John, a reference because of course NATO has scheduled a press conference with the President for this afternoon at the White House with the secretary general from NATO. That press conference was not listed on the White House public schedule when it went out to supporters today. And Sarah was asked why they are. She said the President was going to have a pressability and they did let reporters come into the Oval Office. But it's much difference than a press conference. When people go in there then the President can answer whatever questions he feels like answering. And he is not put on the spot to answer one question specifically as he is during a press conference, two very different things there. And the President was asked about Mueller during that Oval Office break. He did not answer any questions about it.

BERMAN: Kaitlan, and I understand you have some new reporting from the fallout of the leak the comment the joke which wasn't funny at all made about John McCain?

COLLINS: Yes, we are seeing this fallout continue. We are after that communication staffer during a meeting made a remark about Senator McCain dying anyway. Now, I am told by sources inside the White House that the communications team is weighing reducing its number of staff. Right now, they have got about two dozen people. It was that communications meeting that happened where Sadler made that remark and that remark later leaked to the media.

So now they are considering reducing the number of people on that staff. They're not going to outright fire people, but shift them either out of the administration or into other departments outside of the West Wing.

Now, you might ask why are they not firing people directly if the problem here is leaking. That's because, John, they don't know exactly who it is that's doing the leaking and several officials conceded to me today, they still have not figured out who it is who leaked the Sadler remark specifically.

So instead of just firing certain people that they believe are the ones leaking information there, instead going to shrink the team. So tere are less people involved in those meetings. They are going to shift out some junior staffers who they don't think has clearly defined rules. But this really just goes to show what the White House is doing to try to combat that leak, to try to reduce the number of leaks. But dozens of staffers do not think even this will work because dozens of senior officials speak to reporters on a daily basis, including, John, President Trump, himself.

BERMAN: And again, remember these are just more proof that the White House doesn't see a problem if the comments were said at all that we all found out that they were made.

All right, Kaitlan Collins, at the White House. Thanks so much.

Part of the head spinning quality of the news these past few days has been the Senate Intelligence Committee bipartisan conclusion that the Russians were trying to get Donald Trump elected, which of course conflicts with the House Intelligence Committees not bipartisan report.

[21:05:08] In the last hour, I spoke with the Democrat on the Senate panel and earlier tonight I spoke with Congressman Chris Stewart, a Republican on the House Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Congressman Stewart, I know you do not follow President Trump on Twitter and you don't like to read his tweets at all. But you know what he says vaguely. And today one of the things he did is he called the Mueller investigation the greatest witch hunt in American history. Do you believe that to be the case?

REP. CHRIS STEWART (R-UT), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, in certain way and just for clarity, I don't follow him on twitter but believe me, I hear about him, you could imagine.

I think in one specific instance or in one category at least, and that is the allegations of collusion, which I have said to you and others I think for quite a while now, there isn't evidence of that. And I think that that's probably true it's been the accusation were exaggerated. And they just haven't were out. Having said that, I've supported the Mueller investigation, I think it should go forward. I hope he concludes it as quickly as possible but we've always indicated that we support his efforts.

BERMAN: I'll come back to collusion just a minute. Do you think the investigation is disgusting?

STEWART: The Mueller investigation?

BERMAN: Yes.

STEWART: Well, no, and if the President called it that, I would probably disagree with him on that.

BERMAN: The Senate Intelligence Committee and we had chance to talk about this before, the Senate Intelligence Committee came out and said that they agree with the assessment of the intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election and did so with the purpose of helping Donald Trump. Your committee, the House Intelligence Committee said they saw no evidence of that how do you think then that the Senate reached a diametric ally opposed conclusion?

STEWART: I don't know. I mean, I really don't know. As we were talking earlier, did Senate members go out, like many of the House members did and spend time at the CIA and actually looking at the raw data, the raw intelligence? Did they ask the same questions about the fusion cells, did they ask the same question about the review process? About who is involved? And I don't know, all I can say is that they reached a different conclusion than we have. Look, we are talking about art, not the science, there's no question. These are difficult questions to explore and come to conclusions about.

But I'll tell you this, we stand by and I stand by the conclusion that we've reached here. I am not waving on that, because the Senate came to a different understanding. We're confident in the work that we did and then the analysis and the final conclusion.

BERMAN: Do you worry that it gives critics the opportunity to say that the House Intelligence committee is really out there to provide cover for the President?

STEWART: Yes, for sure. For sure, we worried about that, and we've been accused of that all the time. I'm accused that almost every day. Everything that we say in some way gets kind of fashioned or contorted -- you're just trying to protect Trump, you're trying to protect Trump. And that's not true. I mean, we just want the truth, and in fairness, I think we have been critical of Trump. I have been fairly critical as I've said to you something he has tweets. He did that earlier. But at the same time as we look at this at the end of the day, if we don't see it, we just don't see it. All we can do is report that.

BERMAN: I've never heard it said of you by the way, to be clear, to be fair, I've never heard anyone say you, Congressman Stewart are out there to protect Donald Trump. But I have heard it said about the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes who admittedly has been tied up in things that are questionable when he was involved with running to the White House with information that was actually provided by the White House. So you can see how people question his attendance there.

STEWART: Well, two things, one is you haven't heard that about me. I appreciate that. But come spend a day with me. And I promise you will hear it from someone.

And the second thing is some of the characterizations and the things said about Devin just simply aren't true. I mean this is a good example, this idea that he ran to the White House is not a fair characterization of all of what he did there. He did what he felt compelled to do which wasn't to run to the White House but he --

BERMAN: But was he completely forthcoming, though, about the source of the information from when it came within the White House grounds?

STEWART: I think he was a forthcoming as he could have been at the time. Now look, Devin isn't without blemish neither am I. There's no one here that I would say is perfect at this. But the -- again, the characterization that he is carrying water for the President just simply isn't true.

BERMAN: You said before, you said Devin Nunes, the chairman has been tough on the President. Is there any example that you can make up of that in terms of this investigation?

STEWART: I don't know publicly because I don't follow his public statement but I can tell you in my personal interactions with him and on the committee, he has been right down the middle, he is been critical of the President as he has been critical of in some cases other members of the committee some cases his own party. I think Devin has been as I said down the middle and as far as he could be under these really pretty trying circumstances.

BERMAN: Down the middle. Do you think he is blameless at all for sort of the discourse that is emerged in the committee over the last year?

[21:10:05] And I'm not suggesting it's one sided here. I know that both sides were involved in sort of the -- this whole thing falling apart a little bit, but he was the chair.

STEWART: Yes. Well, he as chairman, he can't control what other people do and say and he certainly can't control that the minority doesn't says, and he can't control what the media says about him. And in many cases when the media is characterizing him, or saying things that are just factually inaccurate, you know, I can't blame him for responding to some of those things in some cases.

BERMAN: And we try to be as accurate and responsible here when we were describing what he did with the White House way back when he had to recuse himself from the investigation. You before have said, you have seen him be critical of the President. I never have in anyway. I've never seen him step back and say these actions that the President took, we need to question them or look into them. Can you give me any example that wouldn't reveal classified information or confidences where he was --

STEWART: Once again, I haven't followed his public statements but I can tell you in private and in committee he is very fair, very down the middle of the road on this.

BERMAN: Congressman Stewart, have a great weekend. Thanks very much.

STEWART: All right, thank you sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: We're going to talk about including some breaking news, presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani telling that PBS news hour that the special counsel's team communicated last night with the President's lawyer. And he says they're narrowing down the questions for him.

Now, whether that means the President perhaps to agree and be questioned. He only said it looks more hopeful than it did a day or so ago. Separately, he told Politico about possible upcoming sessions to prepare the President during off hours, and he says perhaps on the golf course.

I want to bring in our panel now. Jeffrey Toobin, Shelby Holliday, Rich Lowry, Karine Jean-Pierre, Alice Stewart, and Peter Beinart.

Shelby, Chris Stewart was on the House Intelligence Committee republic and Mark Warner, the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I've spoken to both of them in the last few hours and they say, die metrically opposite things.

SHELBY HOLLIDAY, POLITICS & BUSINESS REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yes.

BERMAN: You know, Mark Warner tells me unequivocally, he saw evidence that the Russian meddle in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump, and Chris Stewart tells me unequivocally he saw no evidence of such a thing. It's really hard to figure out how both can be true?

HOLLIDAY: Right. I mean, this investigation has divided a lot of different people. But certainly Republicans and Democrats in congress is a big group of -- you know, the cross section of the divide. When I talked to different members of the Congress, they say it's nuanced because you can look at some of the things Russia did online on social media, and maybe they were supporting Bernie Sanders at one point, maybe they are boosting Jill Stein. But Democrats largely say everything collectively was done to help the President. And we heard the Senate come out and also say, yes, we agree with the intelligence agencies, Russia interfered to help President Trump.

I have been talking to a lot of legal experts about the investigation in the past year getting their opinions. They've said it has been swift, exhaustive, extremely productive, professional, we haven't seen leaks. We've barely see Mueller. And then I would also add a word, I'm not a legal expert. But it is very confusing. There are so many people involved. So many different charges, so many different crimes allegedly committed that I think that that's maybe why we don't see this resonate so much with voters particularly Trump's frame.

BERMAN: The first word you used swift is a word I have never heard from the White House or the President's allies describing the investigation.

Jeffrey, I want to get one quick comments before the break, on some of the breaking news, we were saying that Rudy Giuliani is now suggesting he has gone back and forth with the Mueller maybe getting closer. He looks more hopeful that maybe the President will speak. What do you make of that?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, we've heard this a lot from Rudy Giuliani. You know, this spin about he really wants to cooperate. He really wants to talk and maybe it will happen, you know, at this point I think we should just sort of believe it when we see it. It certainly looks like everything I've seen that the President is not going to talk to the Mueller office. He will either file legal objection to a subpoena. He will take the fifth at the end of the day, he will not speak to the Mueller office. And Rudy's interview of the day, what he says about the interviews, I take with a grain of salt.

BERMAN: All right, we're going to talk much more about that. One point I want to make, when we're talking with Shelby right there. The House Intelligence Committee when they said they saw no evidence of trying to help Donald Trump that was just the Republicans on that committee, when the Senate Intelligence Committee says they did see evidence of it. That was a bipartisan statement. We will talk much more about all of this right after the break.

Later, with the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle this weekend, and yes Anderson will be there. Not in the wedding party. We'll going to take a closer look at all of it including the question of loyalty and race.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:18:09] BERMAN: One year is the paper anniversary and Robert Mueller is certainly generated plenty of paper in the form of indictments, plea agreements, charging statements, the President calls it a witch hunt, insist he has done nothing wrong. His critics have certainly done their best to torch it all. And we've been talking about that tonight. That effort is well coordinated and relentless. The question, is it working?

And Rich Lowry, I put that question to you, is it working? Is the White House now and Rudy Guiliani effectively driving the discussion, framing the overall debate on the special counsel investigation?

RICH LOWRY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Certainly working among Republicans. And I think the effort is to soften Mueller up, either to contest his -- whatever conclusions he draws or perhaps to fire him if it comes to that. I think this entire investigation is misbegotten. The public purpose should have been to get the facts out. And I think an independent commission -- robust independent commission would have been better suited to that. That point shouldn't be to try to pinning idiots to the wall for lying to the FBI. It should be to get the facts out. And also, I think the investigation of obstruction of justice is basically illegitimate. I think that's an investigation for a congressional committee or an impeachment committee if Democrats take the House to take up. But it's not a criminal matter that a special prosecutor should be investigating.

BERMAN: How so do? I mean, lying to the FBI, lying to -- if lying to the investigator? Any investigators isn't illegal, how do you have a criminal justice system?

LOWRY: Well, I think -- look, people who lie to the FBI. That's a crime. But if a President is fires the FBI director or some other lawful exercise of his powers, that's not a crime. In the worst case, it's an abuse of power. You don't indict a President for abusing his power. You impeach him for abusing his power. So I think that's ultimately a political question. Not a legal question. And I think Mueller looking at it from a legal perspective is a category error.

[21:20:07] BERMAN: Alice?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that's more the case to look at. Mueller is going to look at all of this through his legal lens, and how are we going to get to the answer what he is supposed to resolve is Russian interference in our election process. And I think we've sort of gone away from that he's looking at the legal implications of what came up initially and what may have arise as a result of people they have spoken with. I think the President and Guiliani have done a masterful job of framing the debate in the court of public opinion, but that's not going to shape, change what Robert Mueller is doing in anyway, shape or form the President will continue to put out tweets about this being a witch hunt. No collusion. No interference, whatsoever and I think that's his way of communicating with his base and then his way of trying to distract from what he feels like this is taking away from the legitimacy of his victory. But all of that I think is good. And that's what the President wants, and Guiliani wants, that's not going to slay Mueller --

BERMAN: I will say -- and Peter, hang on, I will just say that the special counsel has indicted 12 Russians, three Russian companies here and the government is ultimately sanctioned them as well. So there has been something directly involved with Russian meddling, sorry Peter.

PETER BEINART, CONTRIBUTOR, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, you know, Rich and I are both old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment. And so it's a little head spinning for me to hear folks, you know, conservative say that you basically shouldn't get in trouble for obstruction of justice, right? That's what Ken Starr focused on after his wide ranging investigation and that's what they tried to impeach Clinton on.

I think it's true that in an ideal world, some kind of heavy heating independent commission was subpoena power. But what we've seen with the Republicans in Congress is that they were never going to go for that, right? This has become a political process in which the key determining factor is that virtually nothing Robert Mueller find is going to sway the Republican -- Donald Trump base away from him.

They have managed to so discredit this investigation. Despite the fact that Mueller is about the most bipartisan prudential guy you could even find, right? That Trump has already won politically because you can't impeach him without a significant number of Republican votes in the Senate and he has held that base and so on a kind of sheer political term, I would say it's been OK year for him.

BERMAN: Karine?

LOWRY: Can I respond to that. Perjury is a crime. Lying under oath is a crime. This is one reason I think it would be a mistake for the President to go under oath and talk to Robert Mueller but --

(CROSSTALK) BERMAN: Give it a chance.

LOWRY: For the lawful exercise via power is not a crime. It could be an abuse of power. Look, if you are bribing witness, if you suborning perjury, those are not exercises of your lawful powers, right? Those are crimes. But what we're -- we're having Robert Mueller trying to figure out what was the President of the United States' state of mind when he fired James Comey, he has a perfect right to do.

BERMAN: Karine?

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, SENIOR ADVISER, MOVEON.ORG: Right. Look, at the end of the day, it's so funny because it is. It is incredibly politicized. But the thing is Republicans are running this investigation. Robert Mueller is a Republican, the Deputy A.G., a Republican, a political appointee of Donald Trump. We can go down the line.

And it's just amazing that it's being called a witch hunt even when you have the GOP-led Senate Intel Committee finally coming out and seeing, hey, you know what, there is truth to what the intelligence committee said, like Russia did meddle. So, you know, even though Donald Trump is dissecting that crazy tweets he always puts out is it is not a witch hunt. And it's his own political appointee Republicans that are leading this and that are investigating this. And there have been indictments as you laid out.

BERMAN: And there would be more. All right, guys, stake around, a lot more head. Up next, president Trump held forth on that plan North Korean summit today and was well, in full force.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:27:26] BERMAN: President Trump says the United States is continuing to prepare for a summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un despite North Korean threats of pulling out. He talked about it today at the White House. And really did cause some confusion. He said Kim would remain in power if he renounces nuclear weapons. He warned the country could be decimated his word if Kim refuses to strike a deal. And then there was this, speaking about Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction back in 2003, he seemed to conflate that with what happened to Libya and Libya's dictator eight years later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Libyan model isn't a model that we have at all, when we're thinking of North Korean, in Libya, we decimated that country. That Country was decimated. There was no deal to keep Gaddafi. The Libyan model that was mentioned was a much different deal. This would be with Kim Jong- un, something where he'd be there. He'd be in this country. He'd be running this country. We never said to Gaddafi, oh, we're going to give you protection. We're going to give you military strength. We're going to give you all of these things. We went in and decimated him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, the Libyan leader was overthrown and killed in 2011.

Back now with our panel. And joining us is Jamie Metzl, senior member of the Atlantic Council, a national security and staff in the Clinton administration.

And Jamie you listen to the President there, and it really doesn't seem as if he understood what his national security adviser was talking about with the Libyan model, when Gaddafi gave up whatever nuclear capabilities, all be much more limited than Kim Jong-un has but he gave them up, for basically nothing?

JAMIE METZL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: Well, he didn't have much. And he gave it away and he traded it for some kind of economic reform. But we have a President that is entirely ahistorical as if the United States in the world is in many starting from scratch. And without that historical basis, that's why we can say, sure we'll have a meeting with Kim Jong-un, why not? And we're stumbling into this very dangerous situation where the North Korean have no intention of giving up their nuclear weapons. They never said they're going to do it. But because President Trump isn't grounded in any kind of historical realities, he's able to invent new realities as he goes along and so this kind of made history and the realities of the worlds as it functions are very soon going to be crashing into each other. And that's why it's such a dangerous moment.

BERMAN: And Shelby, as part of that misunderstanding or maybe even ignorance of what the Libyan model was, he suggested that Kim Jong-un could get protection?

HOLLIDAY: Protection, right. That was an interesting --

BERMAN: That was a heck of a word when you are dealing with a dictator?

HOLLIDAY: Yes, and I'm not sure if that's exactly what he meant. I mean, it would be great to get President Trump out in front of the press. So we can clarify some of these things.

[21:30:03] But there were two big hurdles that always existed with this meeting. Number one is defining denuclearization. The White House seems to think it's unilateral de-nuclearization. North Korea gets rid of their nukes. That's it. President Trump even said that at a press conference.

And the other one is sequencing. Who goes first? We are already seeing problems on the Korean Peninsula, because who is -- are we stopping military exercises first before Kim dismantles the test site? I mean it's always this back and forth between who blinks? And at this point it's hard to see Kim Jong-un willing to do that? At this point he's threatening to pull out of the summit.

BERMAN: Yes. On the other hand, Rich, the President did say that North Korea would be decimated like Libya and Gaddafi if in some way Kim Jong-un went back on the deal.

LOWRY: Yes, so look the Libyan model for nonproliferation where he just rip all of the stuff up, put it on a plane and ship it to the United States, that should be our goal. The problem is when you talk about the Libyan model, everyone has in their mind that Gaddafi did end up very dead and surely Kim Jong-un is very focused on that fact so -- sure.

BERMAN: So should a President about to sit down for negotiations with a leader about this, should he know what the Libyan model is?

LOWRY: He should be much clear on this. And this is one of the problems potentially with a one-on-one sit down like this. The North Koreans are easily underestimated because it is a heinous and evil regime that also in many respects ridiculous regime. But they're very good at this because widely the negotiations have been key to their survival for 30 or 40 years. So the President cannot under estimate them, he better be at the top of his game and be fully briefed.

STEWART: I'm glad we have Ambassador Bolton there to educate the President on what the Libyan model is and how it was successful in 2003 when they denuclearized, and we lifted sanctions and it worked well.

That is important. I'm glad we have Secretary Pompeo in there who is stressing the fact that we don't just need Kim Jong-un's word, that they will denuclearize, but we need complete and definable denuclearization. And I hope between now and the time -- I do expect we have the summit that Bolton and Pompeo will sit down with the President and tell him everything he needs to know. We cannot have another --

BERMAN: Karine Jean-Pierre?

JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. But here's the thing. That's the problem. He doesn't want to be educated. He is completely ill prepared. He has no desire to learn about the country, to learn about the region, to learn about the how it is that how does Kim Jong-un work? He doesn't want to -- and there is a "Time" magazine report that just came out that actually talks about how he doesn't want to be briefed. And just think about it's being leaked, why is it being leaked? It's being leaked by his own people because they're concerned about this.

BERMAN: One second Peter, because there was one other thing though the President did say today. He was talking about this, and Jamie, you know, I like your insider take on this. To me it actually seemed like a careful measured planned response, which, in response to a Kim doing, suggesting all the meeting won't happen unless we get this promise beforehand, the President basically said, look, we're going to see what happens. He left it open intended intentionally. He didn't go too hot. He didn't go too cold. Isn't that a calculated approach?

METZL: In a way it's calculated but it's calculated for what? The President is really in a bind because if the United States pushes too hard for denuclearization, the North Koreans are going to walk away because they have no intention of giving up their nukes. But if he e accepts this slow gradual process of confidence building measures then, that's the same deals the past Presidents have made with North Korea. And so he'll be criticized for doing exactly what he said he won't do. So he's in a bind but the North Koreans are betting that Trump needs the dopamine hit of the diplotenement of a summit that is certain to fail so much that Trump is going to push forward.

BERMAN: He wants to the meeting, that's for sure, Peter?

BEINART: The United States goal should not be denuclearization. There will no deal denuclearization. Kim Jong-un as horrible as a man as he is, has extremely good reason to want a nuclear weapon. Even if a sane decent person were headed that regime they would want nuclear weapons because they've seen what America does to his adversaries when they don't have nuclear weapons.

What Donald Trump -- maybe Trump's ignorance will be a blessing in fact. Because the best thing you can get out of this would be some verification of their nuclear weapons that are going to still stay there in a different kinds of relationship which would allow some way for the south to start influence the north and start to open up that regime from commerce and trade, and so we don't have war, the idea though that we're going to -- we need to stop passing that, it's an absolutely fiction.

BERMAN: They won't very different goals to be sure. All right we're going to get so much more this hour. Coming up, moderate House Republicans join Democrats to push for a vote on DACA, with growing questions about whether any immigration measure can pass.

Also, at least part of the backdrop is this video from New York City that's gone viral. Manhattan lawyer yelling because patrons at a restaurant are speaking Spanish, not English.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:38:32] BERMAN: Competing immigration bills, one from a group of House conservatives, the other from Republicans sizable group of moderate Republicans lined up and support, they are getting attraction on Capitol Hill tonight. Both senators are on DACA for the action for child at arrivals.

In the meantime, the internet is ablaze of video of a Manhattan attorney yelling because staffs and patrons at a restaurant are speaking Spansh. Here is part of it. It's pretty raw.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your client and your staff is speaking Spanish to customer when they should be speaking English. My guess is they're not documented. So my next call is to ICE to have each one of them kicked out of my country. If they have the [beep] to come here and live off my money, I pay for their welfare. I pay for their ability to be here. The least they can do is speak English.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BERMAN: Back now with our panel. And Karein, I want to be clear about this, in the responsibility era, the person who was solely responsible for those comments is the guy who was making them right there. But there is a question about the overall environment that we're in right now, is there an atmosphere where people like that could feel like it's somehow more allowable?

JEAN-PIERRE: I think because of Donald Trump and the way he started off his campaign attacking Mexicans saying they were rapist and they were drug dealers and continuing that through his Presidential tenure thus far, yes, he's emboldened folks like that to speak out loud. Because they know that they're protected.

Let's not forget Charlottesville, Donald Trump was sad, protected the other side, right, protected the Neo-nazis, and said they were good people and because he did that, people felt even more emboldened with that. And he refused. He went back out and doubled down after he made those comments and refused to apologize. So yes, we're in a place today where you have bigots and racists, who may have been quiet but have been thinking these things before feel like they can be more vocal because of who is in the White House.

[21:40:24] BERMAN: Alice, does the President know any of that?

STEWART: We cannot blame the President for that outburst or a lot of other times, people always blame the President has increased the rhetoric and the disrespectful language. He can't be to blame for someone else's personal actions.

That being said, I do think his demeanor in the White House has been disturbing. I do think the way he attacks people repeatedly on Twitter is unfortunate. I encourage him to take his wife's advice and be best when it comes to Twitter where he's speaking in public. I think he should do that.

But with regard to tieing this back to the immigration debate. I am encouraged that, that man's actions and his talk and his demeanor isn't reflective of Americans. We have nearly 70% of Americans that do want DACA protections that do want to make sure that we provide protections for the people that are -- the children illegal immigrants. And I think what we're seeing in Washington, they understand that. They know that what the will of the people is and they're working in my view to pass some type of protection for DREAMers. And I think we're going to see that.

BERMAN: Peter, yesterday, the President suggested that gang members like MS-13 members are coming over the border, and that his administration has worked to get them out that these people are animals. There was a big debate over that, over the last two days. Where does that language fit into the discussion?

BEINART: I think, look, what so disturbing is that, there is a reasonable debate one can have about immigration, right? About how many immigrants we have and about how we enforce the border, and what we do with people who working without documentation. What so dangerous and frightening about what Trump is doing. And you see it also, you saw it in those ads that you were showing of those Republican presidential candidates is the constant conflation of people who were undocumented with rapists and murderers and criminals, right? And this has really taken hold now. And you see it. And that's deep because you are basically you are dehumanizing people. Of course the vast majority of whom have not committed any of those crimes at a lower rate. And you are making them targets of violence.

STEWART: Let's just be really, really, really clear. The President was not referring to all immigrants. He was talking about MS-13 and saying they are animals is putting it mildly. These people -- the great people cut their hearts off. Animals is --

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: Go ahead Karine.

JEAN-PIERRE: But the problem is he has a pattern. That's the problem. It's not -- yesterday was not an excuse. It wasn't an accident. Oh, he didn't mean this. He didn't mean that. He's done it over and over again.

LOWRY: They're animals and they prey on immigrants.

JEAN-PIERRE: Hold on a second --

(CROSSTALK)

JEAN-PIERRE: Right, but it's always like a particular group of people. Look, let me say something, as a black woman, a as gay woman who is living under this Trump administration, I'm constantly attacked by the Trump administration, so I know exactly what it feels like to be dehumanized by this Trump administration, by his policies, by things that he says so this is incredibly personal to me. And you know, it is amazing that it's coming from this White House.

BERMAN: Rich, it's going to be quicker.

LOWRY: Well, I'm sorry if anyone is insulting you and that's wrong.

JEAN-PIERRE: And someone in regret.

LOWRY: But MS-13, they're barbaric. They perpetrate the worst sort of crimes. And they're not doing it to white people over in Illinois, they're doing it to fellow immigrants two are vulnerable many of whom are illegal immigrants, so we're doing no faces by not speaking the truth of what they do and try to correct them.

BERMAN: All right, guys, thanks so much for this interesting turn here. Coming up, royalty and race. We'll going to take a look at the coverage of the upcoming wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and the conversations that has all started.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:48:08] BERMAN: The royal wedding just two days away, Anderson will be a part of CNN's coverage starting at 4:00 in the morning Saturday. So set your alarm or DVR.

The upcoming marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was a soft furry of media coverage both here and in the U.K. as well as the conversation about race and loyalty. Jason Carroll reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Brixton, it's a district of south London where you'll find black Asian and white cultures all in one neighborhood. It's a place Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have visited before. Markle is celebrated here like in much of Great Britain and because she is biracial, her marriage to Prince Harry has also inspired discussion about race relations.

(on camera) Raise your hand, does everyone know who Meghan Markle is?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

(voice-over) These elementary school girls in Brixton are well aware this is a first for royals.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It surprised me because she is one of the first black like people with to join the royal family.

CARROLL (on camera): And did any of you ever think that you could grow up and perhaps marry into a royal family? Was that something that any of you even absolutely thought of?

CROWD: No.

CARROLL: Why not?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not many like black people can join the like royal family.

CARROLL: Do you think it's a good thing?

CROWD: Yes.

CARROLL: Why is that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because it just shows you that anyone could marry into the royal family.

CARROLL (voice-over): A recent study found a little more than half of those polled in the U.K. say race shouldn't matter in the royal marriage, 75% say they would feel comfortable if their children married someone of a different race, but a government study also found a 27% increase in hate crimes in the past two years.

Steadman Scott has lived in Brixton for some 50 years.

STEADMAN SCOTT, BRIXTON RESIDENT: The only problem in this country and that is a color problem. That is a problem that we have to address.

[21:50:06] CARROLL: There have been a number of negative public comments and headlines made about the Markle family and their background. Take this one in the "Daily Mail," it reads "Harry's girl is almost straight outta Compton."

And then there was the comment made by the sister of the UK's foreign secretary. It reads, "Miss Markle's mother is a dread locked African- American lady from the wrong side of the tracks."

(voice-over) At one point, Prince Harry stepped in to defend Markle and her family. In a statement, his communications secretary cited the racial undertones of comment pieces and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.

Sunder Katwala conducted that recent study on race in the U.K.

(on camera) What did you make of some of the horrific things that the British press were writing about Meghan Markle?

PROFESSOR SUNDER KATWALA, DIRECTOR OF BRITISH FUTURE: Racism's still there in British society but receded quite a lot especially across the generations.

CARROLL (voice-over): And though these girls never expected to see a mixed-race bride in the royal family, they see their marriage as a sign of hope.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it will make a difference slightly because, like, some people, like, really racist, other people because of their color. And because Meghan Markle is joining the royal family, I think it might make them change their mind.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: Jason, I understand that Meghan Markle's mother is set to meet the queen tomorrow. What can you tell us about that?

CARROLL: That is true. Meghan Markle and her mother will be meeting with the queen tomorrow, and think about what even happened today, Markle's mother and Markle meeting with Prince Charles and Camilla, but you think of the optics of what's happening here. You've got this African-American woman whose daughter is marrying into the royal family, and just to sort of bounce off of that study that was referred to in the piece, that study also found that while most white Britons said that too much was being made of Markle and her race, people of color felt as though that was something that should be noted and so there was a -- there was a difference there, and when I asked about that, I said, isn't it possible that both sides should be right, that, you know, those white Britons said people shouldn't be making too much of her race, we should be beyond that, and also those people of color could also be correct in that it's important to recognize her race.

So what we're really seeing here is while there's going to be a huge celebration here on Saturday, this marriage really has opened up this dialogue between people of color and white Britons about race and how it affects people here.

BERMAN: Interesting discussion to be having. Jason Carroll, thanks so much for being with us.

And Anderson will be live from Windsor tomorrow night for "AC360" at 8:00 and will be part of the coverage from CNN at the royal wedding starting at 4:00 in the morning on Saturday. And next, Anthony Bourdain and Anderson talk about the upcoming episode of "Parts Unknown: Armenia."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:56:52] BERMAN: Sunday on an all new episode of "Parts Unknown" Anthony Bourdain heads to former soviet republic of Armenia during his visit Bourdain tackled one of the country's most emotional issue, the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire that begin in 1950 during World War I and went on for almost a decade, the Armenian say 1.5 million of their countrymen were killed that are demanding if you recognized as genocide.

Turkey opposes that term, they say about 300,000 Armenians died and the killings took place during a World War where both sides suffered losses. The U.S., U.K. and Israel did not recognize the mass killing as genocide though 20 other countries including France, Canada and Italy, the Vatican do.

Anderson and Anthony recently talked about the upcoming episode of "Part Unknown: Armenia" at Heidelberg Restaurant here in New York.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: So in this episode, you go to Armenia. Have you ever been there before?

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, HOST OF PARTS UNKNOWN: I have never been to Armenia before. It's a place that I really wanted to do a show. I was really trying to figure out how I was going to go it, meaning what would the perspective be, what's my way in? Who do I know that's Armenia? Out of the blue, a gentleman named Serj Tankian, he's the lead singer, songwriter for a band called System of the Down. He's been back a number of times and I went back.

I also -- as a student of history, I had an impish desire to use the "G" word finally on TV because most official United States policy, much of the world policy, is to refer to the Armenian genocide as, I don't know --

COOPER: Mass killing?

BOURDAIN: As a series of unfortunate events. I don't know what Turkey's preferred language is, but it sure looked like a genocide to me. I'm not reluctant to use that word. This is a country that is -- that has endured a lot. Really good food. I believe one of the first countries if not the first to make wine.

COOPER: Really? BOURDAIN: A lot of -- but surrounded by hostile powers, (inaudible) in sympathy with Turkey, you got Iran on the other side and the Russians above. It's a dicey contentious place to be. As I found out when I tried to visit Nagorno Karabakh took an official flight on a helicopter -- an Armenian military helicopter into this ethnic enclave in what is technically, I guess, Azerbaijan to visit the majority Armenian population there. Immediately found myself PNG'd.

COOPER: Right. I read about that.

BOURDAIN: So I'm professionally persona non grata in Azerbaijan because I made an Armenia show and went --

COOPER: So you can't go back to Azerbaijan?

BOURDAIN: Yes. I mean I guess I can go to the Armenian area.

COOPER: Was it what you expected? Was it -- I mean I'm not sure if you had -- what kind of expectations you had?

BOURDAIN: A lot of it is about Armenian identity, I guess. I think the diaspora Armenians -- the genocide lives more strongly, perhaps, and in the Armenians who have been deprived of the experience of living in Armenia or growing up in Armenia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Tune in for Parts Unknown: Armenia Sunday night at 9:00 on CNN. Thanks for watching 360, time now for Don Lemon and CNN TONIGHT.

[22:00:00]