Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Federal Judge Says Biden Can't Yet End Trump Era Remain In Mexico Migration Policy; National Archives Releases Thousands Of JFK Assassination Documents; Schumer, Pelosi Sit Down With CNN For First- Ever Joint Interview; Harry & Meghan Speak About Family Feuds, Miscarriage And Queens As Final Episode Of Netflix Docuseries Debut; CNN's Donie O'Sullivan's Twitter Account Suspended After Reporting On Elon Musk's Suspection Of @ElonJet Creator. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 15, 2022 - 20:00   ET

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

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Coming up in about two hours, don't miss a "CNN TONIGHT" Special with Alisyn Camerota, all about the Royal revelations from the "Harry and Meghan" documentary. Alisyn hosts that starting tonight at 10 o'clock Eastern.

Thanks so much to all of you for joining us in the meantime, and don't forget "Out Front" is always available on CNN Go.

AC 360 begins now.

[20:00:22]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: We begin tonight with breaking news. Moments ago, a Federal Judge, at least temporarily reversed what had appeared to be a major victory for President Biden on immigration in the Supreme Court, putting a pause on the remain-in-Mexico policy which had been enacted by the former President. The policy sent certain non-Mexican citizens who enter the US back to Mexico for processing.

The Supreme Court had given Biden the greenlight to end the program, but it had also sent the case back to lower courts for additional proceedings.

Of note, at the end of November, the US Immigration Court System surpassed two million pending cases for the first time.

Our chief White House correspondent, Phil Mattingly joins us now.

So talk more about this Judge's decision. What is happening?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You know, Anderson, this just really gives a great window into the complications that the Biden administration has faced for the better part of the last two years on this issue that has remained such a significant problem, and we're certainly seeing that today.

The Migrant Protection Protocol Program was something that President Biden worked to move to undo in his opening days in office, and yet it has been subject to a roller coaster legal battle that, as you noted, seemed to move in the direction of the White House at the end of July or at the end of June when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in their efforts to discontinue this Trump-era program.

And this is a program where asylum seekers, non-Mexican asylum seekers would be kept in Mexico while they awaited their proceedings. It was considered by immigration advocates to be inhumane particularly given where many of those migrants were held in Mexico. And yet, the Biden administration for the better part of their first year and a half in office, tried to end the program were stopped; tried to revise the program, were stopped.

Over the course of that entire process, still maintaining that they believe the program was not the right way to handle this issue in a humane manner. Now, once again, as the administration knew that there was still going to be something coming from the same Judge that blocked this program in the first place, they are now once again grappling with the reality of their inability to stop a program that the President campaigned against, made clear on his opening days in office he would do away with and still is dealing with as they're dealing with so many other very significant immigration issues right now -- Anderson.

COOPER: I mean, the asylum system is broken in the United States. I mean, there are so many people who come from -- not from Mexico, from Venezuela and Cuba and other places -- who say they want to claim asylum, even if they're here for economic reasons, and it takes years for them to get processed to even hear their -- have their claims listened to and in that time, they're not allowed to work. But they are also -- they're allowed to be here as well.

Was the White House expecting this? I mean, do they have a plan for what happens if in fact, they get their wish and this back to Mexico policy goes away?

MATTINGLY: You know, Anderson, the interesting element of this happening now is the entire focus of the White House when it comes to border policy has been the likely termination of the Title 42 authority that had been put in place by former President Trump during the pandemic, essentially turned away people at the border that did not have asylum claims. That has been a significant issue and a very real level of concern in the lead up to what is expected to be a December 21st end to the program.

Weeks of meeting after meeting after meeting between White House officials, National Security Council officials, Department of Homeland Security officials, all of whom acknowledged this will almost certainly lead to a surge at the border for which they will have to grapple with. This was not on the minds of most of the officials I've spoken to about that issue that's coming December 21st over the course of the last couple of days.

That said, they have dealt with this obviously several times. They have dealt with this particular District Court Judge several times as well, and the next steps I think that will obviously be pursued by the administration in the days ahead, but all of this just gives us window into an effort that was laid out in a very definitive manner during a campaign, and a very definitive manner in the opening days, really the first couple of days of the Biden administration.

They were going to undo what former President Trump put into place. They believe, to some degree it was un-American in the words of some officials at the time. They certainly believed that it was not the proper way to treat migrants wherever they came from. And yet, here they are two years into office dealing with these significant issues in a system to your point, Anderson, that as Congress still refuses to act is completely broken.

COOPER: Yes. Phil, stay with me. I want to bring in CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Hoenig; CNN legal analyst, Jennifer Rodgers; our chief political correspondent Dana Bash; and CNN senior national correspondent, Ed Lavandera who is in El Paso, Texas tonight.

So, Elie, can you just explain the legal implications of this ruling and walk us through the difference between the remain-in-Mexico program which is what the ruling deals with and Title 42.

[20:05:10]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Anderson, so the policy of the United States going back many years through administrations of both parties was that when a person seeks asylum in this country, generally speaking, as you said, those procedures, those legal proceedings can take months, years and people while they were waiting, were allowed to wait here in the United States.

Now, in 2019, the Trump administration changed that. They said, now a person has to remain in Mexico. That could be potentially very dangerous because the northern regions of Mexico where people were awaiting tend to be controlled in some areas by drug cartels, it could be very dangerous, it could be a deterrent, which was something the Trump administration was going for.

On Joe Biden's first day in office, as Phil said, he ordered his Department of Homeland Security, take a look at this. The Homeland Security came back and said, we are going to get rid of this policy, we're not going to make people wait in Mexico, that led us into the Courts.

Then there was a series of challenges. It went all the way up to the Supreme Court that actually ruled five to four in favor of Joe Biden saying we're not going to knock it down now, but we want the District Court, that's the Court that ruled today, we want the District Court to see whether this was done procedurally correctly.

And the ruling today from the District Court, Anderson, was that the Biden administration has not done this correctly, with all the nuances of procedure. Now, that will be appealed. So, it's a blow against the Biden administration for now, but it's not over.

COOPER: Dana, I mean, again, the policy, the US has a long-standing policy of people are seeking asylum for persecution, for very specific reasons, and it is a high bar. There is a policy in place, and people who come to the United States can apply for asylum, but the system is so broken that what used to take several months, I mean, decades ago now takes like three to four or five years, in some cases, to be adjudicated before someone can even see a Judge and have their hearing.

And oftentimes, they don't get asylum because they're here for economic reasons or, you know, legitimate reasons, but that's not a claim for asylum. I know the Biden administration says they want this policy overturned, but it doesn't seem like anybody has a plan for dealing with all of these new asylum claims, given the backlog.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The new asylum claims, and then on top of it, what you were talking about with Phil and you asked Elie, Title 42, which is the focus of Washington, the focus of the Biden administration in a big way right now because when that COVID era policy is lifted, which we expect it to happen in a couple of weeks, next week, actually, you're going to have even more people wanting to come, and that's why you're seeing everybody come where Ed Lavandera is.

But the answer to your question is because Congress is completely and totally deadlocked on this and has been, Anderson, for two decades now. I mean, how many times have we been talking about the fact that there are a small number of Republicans and Democrats who want to come together and fix the broken asylum system, and then even more broadly, the broken immigration system, and it is demagogued over and over again, by extremes on the right and the left, frankly, mostly the right on this issue.

And those who want an issue rather than a solution, a policy solution, which is so needed.

COOPER: Right, I mean, Dana, the politics of this work for the extremes on both sides to, as you say, to get demagogue, it's bumper sticker slogans, and it rallies people, it riles up the base of both parties. And yet, it doesn't -- I mean, there are some solutions, it just has to be some negotiation, there has to be compromise and there is not.

BASH: There has to be willingness. There has to be willingness. I remember covering the George W. Bush administration, they got close. The Senate had a big bipartisan bill. And it died in the house because of the politics of it.

And I remember covering fast forward many years, I mean, never mind the Democrats, but Donald Trump, there was a plan on his desk, which he had the political capital to do, which would have helped to reform the system, not entirely, but at least go a small or more than a small way to do it and he pulled out at the last minute because he didn't want to enrage the Republican base. That kind of thing happens over and over again, or at least it did for a little while.

Now, they are not even talking in a bipartisan way in a real productive discussion that needs to happen and maybe these images are going to change things. We can be optimistic, but I think we also need to be realistic.

COOPER: And Ed, is it clear what the immediate impact of this ruling on people hoping to get into United States will be? Because again, people come here, they're allowed to apply for asylum, it takes years, but they're not allowed to work in that time because if they are immediately allowed to work, then that would encourage other people to come and just say they want to apply for asylum, be able to get a job, and stay here for years, and then maybe get tossed out or have their asylum claim actually validated.

[20:10:21]

But these asylum seekers are not allowed to work for years, so they're driven into the underground economy.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And Anderson, I can also assure you, as we've spoken with dozens of migrants over the last few days here in El Paso, and this is the symbolic reality of what this lack of movement on immigration reform has created.

So, tonight on the streets of El Paso, you have people sleeping on the ground. They are waiting. They have been processed through Border Patrol, they have papers and legal ability to stay here, as their immigration case goes through the system. As you mentioned, that will take a long time.

And I can assure you, in speaking with dozens of migrants over the last few days, all of this is completely lost on them. It is such a technical, confusing, baffling process. You have Title 42, you have the remain-in-Mexico policy. There are people who get deported, some people who don't get deported, and it is completely confusing, it's almost impossible for them to make sense of it.

But what they do know is that their immediate lives are a complete disaster and a mess and they have to do something about it now. They don't -- they will tell you that they do not have time.

So what does that create? It creates a system where they are willing to spend thousands of dollars traveling from their home country, through Mexico, the stories of kidnappings, and the sequestration, you know, being held at gunpoint as more people get more money from them as they get to this very point. They are willing to endure all of that for the chance to be able to go through that process, and it is not guaranteed.

The immigration court system put up numbers today that said in the last two months, 40 percent of immigration cases have ended up in deportation proceedings. So, this is not a guarantee that many of these people will be able to stay here in the US.

But the news that we're talking about here is almost like beside the point to them at this point. They feel like this is their only option left in their lives.

COOPER: Jennifer, what sort of next step do you expect the Biden administration to take given that this case has already been to the Supreme Court, sent back to the lower level Judge? Is there any recourse for the White House at this point? Because again, if this policy does ultimately go away, which is what the White House says they want, I don't understand what their plan is to deal with people who are coming, who will claim asylum who have, you know, no way to make a living here, and years and years and years of waiting in an overwhelmed system, because there is not enough Judges and Courts to even hear the asylum claims.

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, well, Anderson. I mean, assuming that they press ahead with their revocation of the Trump-era policy, they will appeal to the Fifth Circuit. So we went up to the Supreme Court before on substantive grounds, do they have the power under the Administrative Procedures Act to enact this new policy or really, actually revoke the policy of the Trump administration? Now, the question is different.

Now, the question is, did they do it properly? Under the APA, there are notice provisions, public comment provisions, you know, there are specifically spelled out ways that you can enact policy under the Administrative Procedures Act. So that's what's on the table now.

So I think the Biden administration will appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and in part, because, you know, there's a real structural problem here with this, which is forum shopping and this Judge, Judge Kacsmaryk is the only Judge in this District.

So you have a situation where Republicans are going to him for a reason, because he agrees with their positions. And so I think both on the merits of it, and also just to say that this Judge, you know, listen, this is not an okay thing, this forum shopping. We're going to appeal you to the Fifth Circuit and get you overturned, and maybe teach them a lesson in that way.

But I expect them to appeal and move first day, and if they get that we'll go back to where we were before today's opinion.

COOPER: And Phil, I mean, there has to be ultimately -- I mean, the only way this problem ultimately gets solved is through Congress and some sort of a legislative solution to the immigration issue, comprehensive or detailed or specific point by point parts of these issues, you know, smaller pieces of it.

Is any of that a possibility in the coming year or two for this administration?

MATTINGLY: You know, what's interesting, Anderson, it is probably the best possibility that we've seen in a long time. Just a couple -- over the course of the last couple of weeks, Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Thom Tillis, Democrat or now an Independent, I guess, but caucuses with the Democrats generally and a Republican came together on a framework related to both the Title 42 issue and related to the so- called DREAMers, those who were brought here by parents who were undocumented immigrants, and/or were born here and are kind of in a state of limbo still, despite all of the efforts on that front.

There was a push to try and attach that and Dana knows this effort better than anybody, kind of into your vehicles, the major spending package to try and tack anything you can get onto that and try and move it forward. And what was interesting, I was talking to White House officials, who knew particularly on the Title 42 issue since that is what they've been focused on over the course of the last several weeks, this was really the only long term way to address some of these issues, some of these very, very clear real and acute issues is some type of bipartisan agreement.

And yet, it was made clear about 24 hours ago that there was simply no appetite to attach it to move it forward and to get things done. There's a solution here, that only comes through legislation.

If you've learned anything from the last two years based on what President Biden promised as a candidate, based on what his administration pledged to do when they came into office, and based with what they've grappled with over the course of these last two years, it is that executive branch only, executive authority only simply is not a valid and viable solution on these issues. In fact, to some degree, it's only made things worse.

COOPER: I appreciate all of you reporting on this. We're going to have more on the story throughout the program tonight.

But first, we have more breaking news. A historical milestone for one of the darkest days in the history of the United States, the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy.

There is there's newly released government documents about his assassination, we're going to talk about what is inside them with a presidential historian.

Also tonight, there is a CNN exclusive, the first ever joint interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, definitely first ever at a Chinese restaurant. CNN's Jamie Gangel sat down with them, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:20:34]

COOPER: More breaking news tonight. In fact, it is a moment, 59 years in the making. The National Archives tonight has released more than 13,000 documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The second of two releases ordered last year by President Biden.

Extraordinary because of the subject matter, as well as the decades it has taken to finally see these documents. The CIA tonight says it has now released all information known to be related directly to the assassination, with about 95 percent of all agency documents within the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act now public in their entirety.

CNN's Tom Foreman joins us with more on this milestone. What do we know about these documents so far?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know first of all, as you noted, there are a lot of them. Anderson, this is the equivalent of a dozen copies of "War and Peace" being dumped out there. And yet this is a tiny fraction of the roughly five million documents related to the JFK assassination.

We also know based on what some JFK assassination historians have said, what the CIA has said, what other people have shown, and what history has shown that what we're not likely to find in this is any kind of giant breakthrough, some really smoking gun explanation here as to how this happened, or some secret conspiracy, nothing that will satisfy the conspiracy theorists out there.

That said, there are a lot of interesting details here -- Anderson.

COOPER: Like what? What have you found so far?

FOREMAN: Well, a lot of that has to do with the process of how the CIA goes about things. Some of that explains partially why this has been hidden for so long, so it doesn't reveal their methods, how they surveilled people down in Mexico, Soviet people down there had secret wiretaps down there.

At one point, there's a small line where a psychologist of some sort who had looked at Oswald decided and saying, "Oswald's motivation is largely explained in terms of his neurotic background, his failure to achieve status, and his very deep resentment of all authority. Oswald saw a movie on TV about an attempted presidential assassination with a rifle shortly before his deed, which could have sparked him into action."

So there are explanations like that, which would totally point toward Oswald is acting alone. But then there's another one where they talk about an intercepted phone call between Cuba and Miami two days after the assassination of the President, the gist of which was "Plan of Castro carried forward. Bobby is next," obviously a reference to Bobby Kennedy, who indeed was killed five years later.

"Soon, the atomic bombs were rain, and they will not know from where." This however, although that would light up a conspiracy theorist, there is no indication in this record, that the CIA or anyone else took this very seriously. This was like the talk of a blowhard, it seemed like. If anything, they said, well, it's a good lesson on how people can be listening in on your phone calls and you expect lots of that in here.

COOPER: And is everything released now? Or I mean, it seems like there still may be some more stuff out there?

FOREMAN: No, there are still some material out there. Not a whole lot. It's a small amount, the Collection, according to the Archives, still has 515 documents withheld in full, another 2,545 withheld in part, not entirely clear when or how the rest of it will be released.

But again, there is just no indication that what is hiding there is some great revelation. But what could be hiding there is even more information about the details of how things were handled, how it was investigated, and maybe something that will put to rest some of these conspiracies, although after all these years, Anderson, I wouldn't bet on it.

COOPER: Yes, Tom, thank you. Keep going through the documents. Fascinating.

Perspective now from CNN presidential historian, Tim Naftali.

Tim, how big a deal is this?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, Anderson, it is a huge deal that our government basically is forcing our Intelligence Community to release things they never wanted to release.

Remember, this is the fourth or fifth bite at the apple that the Intelligence Community had. And the first few go rounds, the Intelligence Community kept arguing for National Security reasons, we can't release these details. And the combination of Trump's conspiracy thinking and Joe Biden's determination for transparency has led to this day where we have documents that have no redactions at all, which talk about very sensitive CIA operations that have nothing to do with the assassination of JFK, but everything to do with the secret world of the 1960s and 70s.

COOPER: Does anything in the files change the official historical record and conclusion about JFK's assassination?

[20:25:10]

NAFTALI: No, I don't think -- nothing. I mean, I have to say, this was described as 10 "War and Peace" I couldn't possibly get through one "War and Peace" in the course of an afternoon. I sample it based on some assumptions I had about what might be out there; like about 10 percent of the material. I didn't see anything nor was expecting anything to change the main narrative that Lee Harvey Oswald was a self-radicalizing assassin.

We've had a number of them before in our history. And of course, if you think about the history of Islam as terrorism, a lot of it involve self-radicalized individuals. So that basic narrative doesn't change.

But here is the crux of it all. One of the reasons we have conspiracy theories, to the extent we do in our culture, is that after World War Two, we created a National Security State that introduced layers of secrecy in our own government. That meant that our own government for reasons it felt reasonable, couldn't always tell us what it was doing, abroad and at times at home.

That all secrets layered upon secrets, layered upon secrets, led to an explosion of skepticism in this country in the 70s, a series of investigations that then shocked Americans about what our government was up to. We've never recovered from that shock to our basic trust in government to this day.

Now, I think it's worse now than it's been since the 70s, but if you want to see why Americans thought their government was overly secretive, take a look at some of these details. Give you a few examples: The US government illegally was intercepting our letters. That's not -- that became known in the 70s, but they were intercepting letters of pretty prominent people like Jane Fonda.

In the 1970s, Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda sued the US government to get access to their FBI materials that had not been released in the Freedom of Information Act requests they had made to the FBI. They lost.

Well, today, we know that the CIA had intercepted four letters that were sent to Miss Fonda in the year '72-'73 and they wouldn't release them to her. It gives you an example of sort of the level of surveillance that our government was engaged in that period.

So I think people will understand now a bit about the culture of secrecy that developed in the Cold War, and why there was a huge push back in the 70s, and again, there was a huge push back after 9/11. And one reason why we should be very worried about unrestrained -- an unrestrained National Security community.

COOPER: Yes, Tim Naftali, it is fascinating. I want to keep looking at these documents. Thank you so much.

Up next, a CNN exclusive. Our Jamie Gangel sits down with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over Chinese food and discuss a slew of topics including the former President and the January 6 hearings.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:32:15]

COOPER: Welcome back. Want to turned to a CNN exclusive the Democratic leaders of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have worked together for about 35 years is the first time ever that they sat for an interview and at their favorite Chinese restaurant to talk to CNN's Jamie Gangel about their working relationship with the former president, 2024 race, the impact of the January 6 hearings.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): What are you going to have?

REP. NANCY PELOS (D) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I do want to get dumplings.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Hi. Sorry, I'm late. Hot and sour soup.

PELOSI: Hot and sour soup.

SCHUMER: That's a (INAUDIBLE). Nice bowl of soup on a cold day.

PELOSI: There you go.

GANGEL (on-camera): You actually first met at a meal like this in 1987. OK.

SCHUMER: It's like January. And George Miller who was my roommate, my landlord, but he said There's a new person joining our group, her name is Nancy Pelosi. She's the new Congress member from San Francisco. And she had before I met her, she will become the first woman speaker. That's what he said. (INAUDIBLE).

GANGEL (on-camera): He was right.

PELOSI: But what was interesting about it --

SCHUMER: She did now was right.

GANGEL (on-camera): Who really knew the first time (INAUDIBLE)?

SCHUMER: I knew she would really be a force.

PELOSI: Whatever that might be.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you like put some appetizers?

SCHUMER: So, I'll have an order of shrimp dumplings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

SCHUMER: And then I'll have some string beans.

GANGEL (on-camera): Talk to me about your relationship. The two of you finish each other's sentences. You're on the phone constantly. 4-5 --

SCHUMER: 4-5-7-3-0-1 I'm not going to say the (INAUDIBLE) --

PELOSI: Oh please.

GANGEL (on-camera): You know everybody's phone number?

SCHUMER: (INAUDIBLE). I probably dial hers more than just about anyone other than people in my family.

PELOSI: Here's the thing, I say this all the time. He has, what do you call that phone?

SCHUMER: Flip phone.

PELOSI: A flip phone. If he had a regular smartphone, we could reduce the number of conversations because I could just text him.

GANGEL (on-camera): How would you describe your relationship? You're called the power couple. You're called an odd couple --

PELOSI: See we're friends.

SCHUMER: We're close friends. It's almost like brother and sister.

PELOSI: That's right.

GANGEL (on-camera): When you disagree, who wins?

SCHUMER: Usually her.

PELSOI: No, no. When we disagree, then we end the conversation. And we know we're going to come back (INAUDIBLE) --

SCHUMER: (INAUDIBLE) a week ago. Right? What was it?

GANGEL (on-camera): What was it about?

SCHUMER: I don't remember.

PELOSI: I don't remember what it was, but it was, shall we say candid.

SCHUMER: Candid.

GANGEL (on-camera): I want to talk about how the two of you navigated working with former President Trump. Because he --

SCHUMER: We had a good time.

GANGEL (on-camera): He famously nicknamed the two of you, Chuck and Nancy. Right. It was always Chuck and Nancy. I think you both knew that Speaker Pelosi got under his skin.

SCHUMER: Right.

GANGEL (on-camera): Right?

SCHUMER: Yes.

[20:35:00]

GANGEL (on-camera): Was there a strategy when you went in to a meeting? Was there a good cop, bad cop?

PELOSI: He's just inaugurated. This is an historic moment. The President of the United States. So, I'm thinking how was he going to begin? Is he going to quote, the Constitution, American history, poet, the Bible? You know, I won the popular vote.

SCHUMER: So, he started.

PELOSI: And I said, Mr. President, that's just not true.

SCHUMER: We sort of set him up instinctively. We didn't plan this. Everyone thought we planned it out. It was about the government shutdown, the first time. And Nancy said something to him about he didn't understand what -- about women. So what --

PELOSI: Chuck was masterful?

SCHUMER: Well --

PELOSI: He was masterful.

SCHUMER: -- she set him up, so I could go in for the kill.

PELOSI: No, but he was masterful. He's talking to him about the government shutdown at about immigrants in North. And he says, I have take ownership of the shutdown.

SCHUMER: No, I said, so Mr. President, you'll own -- will you own the shutdown? Yes, I will. And that was --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Here's your shrimp dumplings.

SCHUMER: -- oh thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

GANGEL (on-camera): There were a series of moments that you saw firsthand. There's the clap. There's tearing up the speech. And then there is the famous picture. It's the meeting in the Cabinet Room, where you stood up and confronted. Looking back at those moments what was going through your mind.

SCHUMER: He said, he doesn't stand a chance. He doesn't know what he's up against. I tell people, Nancy instinctively knew how to handle Trump. Because for her first, you know, 35, 40 years of life, she raised five children, and she knew how to deal with children. And that's what helped her deal with Trump because he ultimately was a child.

PELOSI: We had different approach. Chuck, as a New Yorker.

SCHUMER: Brooklyn.

PELOSI: Brooklyn. So, they spoke their own kind of -- they understood each other.

GANGEL (on-camera): January 6, there is extraordinary footage of the two of you being evacuated. What was it like that day?

PELOSI: It was horrible. I mean, it was horrible. Time and --

SCHUMER: Striking. People are invading the Capitol. We were both worried that our own members, the senators in my Senate, that people in her House, what was happening to them because they whisked us off to this other place. For a while cell phone service didn't happen. And it was just frightening.

GANGEL (on-camera): Did you try to reach out to the President himself?

SCHUMER: Yes. That wouldn't put them on -- the Attorney General the acting I think he was acting Attorney General, he wouldn't put them on.

GANGEL (on-camera): He wouldn't take your calls?

SCHUMER: President wouldn't, that's correct.

PELOSI: I think you see in some of the forum, how firm Chuck was when we're calling the governors, the mayors, the Secretary and we were talking to the Secretary of the Army, the Attorney General. Secretary of the Army was supposed -- it's really a tragedy that they did not send the National Guard earlier.

SCHUMER: They were sort of afraid to act. Trump had so intimidated, everybody, you could never tell him the truth. You could never go contradict them. Let's have some Peking duck. That's good.

PELOSI: That's it.

SCHUMER: (INAUDIBLE).

GANGEL (on-camera): There's a CNN poll that just came out that shows there's little appetite on both sides for a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024. You're stepping aside, do you think President Biden should step aside for a younger generation?

PELOSI: I think President Biden has done an excellent job as President of the United States. I hope that he does seek reelection. He's been a great record.

SCHUMER: What he's accomplished.

GANGEL (on-camera): Do you he should run again?

SCHUMER: Yes. He's done an excellent, excellent job. And he runs I'm going to support him all the way.

GANGEL (on-camera): Right now. Donald Trump is the only Republican who has announced he could be the nominee. He could be president again. You've been through the first presidency. You've been through January 6. What would it mean if Donald Trump was reelected as president?

SCHUMER: I don't think it will happen. The American people have gotten wise to. Took a little while but they did.

PELOSI: I don't think that we should talk about him while we're eating.

SCHUMER: See.

PELOSI: Really, another Trump presidency?

GANGEL (on-camera): You call Donald Trump quote, insane.

PELOSI: I think there's a need for an intervention there by his family or somebody else. You know, I don't think he's on the level now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[20:40:06]

COOPER: CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel joins us now. Jamie, I don't know who came up with this idea. I'm guessing it was you. This -- that's a genius. You should have like Chinese food with everybody. Like this is a really great fascinating to watch. You know them sit around having dumplings and just chewing the fat.

GANGEL: The shrimp dumplings were excellent for the record. I will also say that I don't think that flip phone is going away anytime soon. And even though Nancy Pelosi is stepping down as speaker, she will remain in Congress. I will guarantee you that they are still going to be talking four or five times a day on the phone. It's quite a relationship. And what the Chinese restaurant gave us tonight, Anderson is just a look behind the scenes at the way they really are.

COOPER: Yes, I mean, that's what's so fascinating about it. I mean, you really you see two people who know each other, obviously and it's just fascinating to see them interact and interact with you and yes, I seriously think you should do them on (INAUDIBLE).

GANGEL: All future interviews, Chinese restaurant done.

COOPER: Jamie Gangel, thank you so much. I want to come.

GANGEL: Sure.

COOPER: Coming up, explosive new revelations in the final episode of the Harry and Meghan Docuseries, a battle between brothers, Harry's struggle to simply get a meeting with the Queen, what the couple believes may have led to his wife's miscarriage. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:45:29]

COOPER: Official silence from Buckingham palace tonight after the release of the final episodes of the Harry and Meghan Docuseries. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex got into much more depth about their emotional battles outside and inside the royal family.

Our royal correspondent Max Foster tonight shows us one of the most powerful moments.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: Good morning. It's 6:00 a.m. on the 14th of March, and we are on the freedom flight. We are leaving Canada and we are headed to Los Angeles.

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The palace may have been spared in the first drop of episodes, but this time Harry and Meghan didn't pull any punches.

PRINCE HARRY: Everything that's happened to us was always going to happen to us because if you speak truth to power, that's how they respond.

FOSTER (voice-over): In the final episodes of the couple's Netflix Docuseries, Harry says he was being blocked from meeting the Queen to discuss his future.

PRINCE HARRY: Once we're back in the UK, I rang home and said, Dad told me you're busy. And she goes, yes, I'm -- I didn't know that I was busy. I've been told that I'm busy. Unless you've been told that I'm busy all week. I was like, wow.

FOSTER (voice-over): By this point, the couple had decided to step back from royal duties, issuing a statement to that effect. That's triggered a showdown at Sandringham house with William, Charles and the Queen.

PRINCE HARRY: It was terrifying to have my brother screaming shouting me and my father saying things that simply weren't true and, and my grandmother quietly sit there and sort of take it all in.

FOSTER (voice-over): The couple sharing their perspective on the royal rift, which in their words, pushed them out of the fold. It started during their tour of Australia back in 2018. So successful, it created jealousy in the palace they say.

PRINCE HARRY: The issue is when someone who's marrying and it should be a supporting a supporting act, is then stealing the limelight or is doing the job better than the person who was born to do this. That upsets people, it shifts the balance. Within four hours, they were happy to lie to protect my brother. And yet for three years, they were never willing to tell the truth to protect us.

FOSTER (voice-over): Meghan says the stress of the media coverage was too much. Last year saying she didn't want to live anymore.

MEGHAN MARKLE, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: It's like all of this will stop if I'm not here. And that was the scariest thing about it is it was such clear thinking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I remember her telling me that that she had wanted to take her own life. And that really broke my heart because I knew well, I knew that it was bad. But to just constantly be picked up by these vultures, just picking away at her spirit that she would actually think of not wanting to be here.

FOSTER (voice-over): But she also suffered physically because of the stress of the worldwide coverage. And in British newspapers, including the Daily Mail, which published a letter she wrote to her father.

PRINCE HARRY: I believe my wife suffered a miscarriage because of what the Mail did, they watch the whole thing. Now, do we absolutely know that the miscarriage was create caused by that, of course we don't. But bearing in mind the stress that caused the lack of sleep and the timing of the pregnant -- at the time in the pregnancy. I mean weeks and she was, I can say from what I saw that miscarriage was created by what they were trying to do to her.

FOSTER (voice-over): Meghan says she took on her royal roll with the best of intentions. But she was warned from the very beginning by her private secretary that things wouldn't be smooth.

MARKLE: There was this moment where our private secretary should work for me was 20 years ago. What she said to me was it's like this fish is like swimming perfectly powerful. It's on the right current. There in one day, this whole organism comes in and the entire thing goes. What is that? What is it doing here it doesn't look like this it doesn't move like us we don't like it get it off of us?

[20:50:06]

FOSTER (voice-over): The family's response well on Thursday they showed a united front of a planned engagement, and the palace said they had no plans to comment on the series.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: That's Max Foster reporting from London. Be sure to stick around for "CNN TONIGHT SPECIAL ROYAL REVELATIONS," Alisyn Camerota is going to bring that to you at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right after our two- hour edition of "360."

Coming up, new developments minutes ago involving Twitter in the news organizations covering the chaos and CEO Elon Musk took over. The action the Musk's company just took against some journalists including one of our own. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: This just in that Elon Musk is suspending the Twitter accounts of some of the journalists who cover Twitter, among them members, the New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Our Donie O'Sullivan, who reported here last night on the controversial suspension of a different account just had his account suspended this evening.

[20:55:05]

So Donie, last night you were sitting here, you were reporting on the young guy who his tracking -- has been tracking the private jet of, of Elon Musk. That's him. You did an interview with him and his grandmother.

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Correct.

COOPER: And apparently Elon Musk did not like that.

O'SULLIVAN: Yes. So, what's basically happened just really over the past hour or so. A number of journalists at national news outlets, including the New York Times, The Washington Post, and here at CNN have been permanently it seems suspended from Twitter. Now all those journalists, including myself happens to be people who cover Elon Musk. This is Elon Musk, of course, who the Free Speech apps.

COOPER: Right? Yes.

O'SULLIVAN: Who likes the First Amendment. Drew Harwell, who's one of the reporters of The Washington Post who was suspended. He put out a statement say, Elon says he is a free speech champion. And he is banning journalists for exercising free speech. I think that calls into question his commitment.

Look, I mean, this is, you know, as we saw with the Jet tracker last night, Musk seems to be just stamping out accounts that he doesn't like.

COOPER: Look which is -- I mean, kind of crazy given his --

(CROSSTALK)

O'SULLIVAN: Yes. No --

COOPER: Now, let me just take a look at your -- I think we have a image of your account. Your account.

O'SULLIVAN: Yes. So that's what I see when I try to log in right now. It says, your account is permanently suspended. And it says after careful review, that they decided to kick me off the platform. In the minutes leading up to the suspension and we were reporting. We're doing our job. We were reporting on what was happening with the Musk jet situation. Musk had claimed as kind of a justification for taking down the jet account that there was an incident this week involving his child in Los Angeles. He claimed that a stalker he described it, followed his car that his child was in, and he tried to link this to the jet tracking app. It's not entirely clear that that there is a linkage there. But nevertheless, just a few minutes before we got kicked off Twitter, I had reported that the Los Angeles Police Department said they were aware of the situation and the tweet by Elon Musk and was in contact with his representatives and his security team. They did point out that no crime reports have been filed yet.

But look, I mean, I think in terms of me personally, many of the national reporters as the Times and the Post, were OK, I'm on the Anderson Cooper show. We have a platform and just like when Trump got kicked off, we can post elsewhere. I do think this is very important about the potential chilling impact this might have for freelance journalists, independent journalists around the world, particularly those who cover Elon Musk's are companies like Tesla and SpaceX. I think this could have a real shadow factor.

COOPER: Yes. Donie O'Sullivan will continue to follow. Appreciate it.

Ahead, more on our breaking news from a federal judge in Texas and President Biden's efforts to end the former presidents remain in Mexico immigration policy. CNN's Ed Lavandera shows us how a separate immigration issues causing a crisis in El Paso. We'll have a live update from the border, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)