Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Archives: Trump Was Aware Of Correct Declassification Process; Taxi Driver Who Drove Harry, Meghan: Chase Not That Aggressive; GOP- Led House Votes To Refer Santos Expulsion To Ethics Panel. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 17, 2023 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: This is -- it's incredible to see it like this. It's the twin -- it creates a digital twin, of that Titanic wreck, with incredible clarity.
The scan was done, last summer, by Magellan, a deep sea mapping company, and Atlantic Productions, who are making a documentary. They took more than 700,000 images. They created this 3D reconstruction.
The hope is it'll provide new answers, on what happened, when the Titanic sank, on its maiden voyage, in 1912, after hitting an iceberg, which killed more than 1,500 people.
That's it for us. News continues. "CNN PRIMETIME" with Sara Sidner starts now.
Sara?
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST, CNN PRIMETIME: Thank you, Anderson.
Good evening. I'm Sara Sidner.
Tonight, multiple sources, tell CNN, the National Archives has hard evidence that shows Donald Trump, and his top advisers, knew of the correct declassification process, while Donald Trump was President, which flies in the face of what Trump has claimed, in the past.
Tonight, the documents could be in the hands of the Special Counsel, as we speak, in a criminal probe.
Now, in just a moment, we will try to get some answers, from Trump's lawyer, who will be joining me live.
But first, a look at the brand-new information, gathered by our CNN team. Their sources say there are 16 records that the National Archives is handing over to Jack Smith.
The records apparently indicate Trump, and his top advisers, were made aware, of the correct process, to declassify material, while Trump was President, undercutting claims, like this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I took what I took. And it gets declassified.
They become automatically declassified, when I took them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: And also, this claim.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It doesn't have to be a process.
If you're the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified. Even by thinking about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: We're told the Archives informed Trump, about its discovery, yesterday, in a letter. CNN has obtained a copy.
It says, and I'm quoting here, "The 16 records in question all reflect communications involving close presidential advisers, some of them directed to you personally, concerning whether, why, and how you should declassify certain classified records." And more ominously, "It is likely that the 16 records contain evidence that would be important to the grand jury's investigation."
Why would it be important? Because they could provide insight into Trump's possible intent, whether he willfully disregarded what he knew, to be clearly established protocols, when he took those documents, and held on to them, after leaving the White House.
Meanwhile, Trump has lost a key member, of his defense team, in this case. Timothy Parlatore testified, before the grand jury, in December. His exit comes, at a critical time, when the Special Counsel, may be nearing the final stretch, in the criminal probe.
We do have one of the members, who is still on Donald Trump's team. His name is Jim Trusty. And he joins us now.
Jim Trusty, thank you for being here.
Let's get right into it. As President of the United States, did Donald Trump know how the declassification process worked? Or did he just ignore it?
JIM TRUSTY, FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY, TRUMP'S ATTORNEY IN DOCS CASE: Well, President Trump was exactly right, in your Town Hall, the other day.
He is aware, of a bureaucratic process that can be used. He used that bureaucratic process, in the middle of his presidency, to declassify the Crossfire Hurricane matters that are the subject of that 316-page report we saw, this week. But at the end of his presidency, he relied on the constitutional authority, as Commander-in-Chief, which is to take documents, and take them to Mar-a-Lago, while still President, as he was at the time, and to effectively declassify and personalize them.
He talked about declassifying them, but he didn't need to. And if you look at the Constitution, you look at the Presidential Records Act, there is absolutely no basis, for saying that bureaucracy rules, and that a President doesn't have the authority, entrusted in him, by the voters, to possess, and to declassify, and to hold on to documents.
SIDNER: Hold on. Let's look at the Presidential Records Act, and what it actually says. It says "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records." And under federal law, willfully removing any record or document carries the possibility of a three-year prison sentence.
We went. We looked it up, as journalists do. And nowhere does it say that you can mentally just think about it, and that they are declassified.
So, you haven't heard this from any other president, at any other time. So, what gives Donald Trump, the right, to use mental gymnastics, to try and figure this out, and try to put out there that this was all perfectly legal?
TRUSTY: You've packed so many misstatements, into one question, or whatever that was, I'm not sure. But let me tell you this.
SIDNER: Well I read the law.
TRUSTY: The Presidential Records Act, well --
SIDNER: So, it's not a misstatement.
[21:05:00]
TRUSTY: Yes, well, we'll see about that.
The Presidential Record Act does not have a criminal enforcement component to itself, OK? Look at it again. Not in the PRA.
PRA says that Presidents and Archivists have to try to work together, to resolve the universe of documents that are held onto, by the former President, or turned over to the Archivist. The universe there is literally personal, or presidential.
And the case law has shown, in every case, but President Trump's that NARA and the DOJ, completely deferred, to the former President's decisions, as to which documents he's going to hold on to, or which ones he's not.
Bill Clinton had audio tapes, of hours and hours and hours, of recordings, from the Oval Office. When NARA was sued? And by the way, that's the remedy, under the Presidential Records Act, is civil litigation. When NARA was sued, DOJ stood there, in open court, and said, "Judge,
none of us may like it, but the President gets to make that determination. If NARA doesn't like his determination, they can sue." Sock drawer, Bill Clinton, his tapes were fine.
Obama, 2018, there's a letter, from the Obama Foundation, acknowledging millions of documents, in a former furniture store, in Illinois, including classified documents. And their remedy, to any situation there, in that totally unsecure setting is to say, "You know what? We're going to give you $3.3 million, NARA, to help transport these documents, whenever we digitize the library." Now, it's been five years. There's no hint of a digital library yet.
But none of this is criminal. None of it has historically ever been subject to criminal tools, such as subpoenas, or search warrants. But, for Donald Trump, there's an exception that this DOJ, and this FBI, are pursuing, to mislead the American public, to misuse statutes that are not criminal, and to have an "Ends justify the means" mentality, when it comes to one President only.
SIDNER: The statute, I read, talked about the fact that there could be a three-year prison term.
And I do want to remind you that you talked about the different presidents, going and saying, "Hey, we have this. We will send it to you."
The issue here, the Archives, has said, is that they asked for the documents, repeatedly, over and over and over again, over many months. And at first were told that they didn't have them, and then they just wouldn't turn them over. And that is the difference between those people, who had some of the documents, and Donald Trump.
So, do you see nothing wrong with what Donald Trump did?
TRUSTY: Absolutely nothing criminally wrong. If they wanted to sue, and they wanted to speed up the fight, they could do that.
But he engaged in negotiations. You're glossing over the fact that in January of 2022, he gave 15 boxes worth of material to Archives. I've looked at every one of those boxes.
SIDNER: Right, but after they asked for it --
TRUSTY: He provided them to them. He was --
SIDNER: -- over and over and over again.
TRUSTY: Well let me finish please. Let me -- it took Nixon, 13 years, to get his tapes, to Archives, OK?
Bill Clinton got to hold on to the sock drawer tapes.
Obama, NARA, the politicized bureaucrats that they are, announced that "Don't worry, we have everything from Obama." And then, Delaware laid bare the truth that they didn't have everything, from the Obama administration. And frankly, I'm sure they still don't.
So, every president, and many people that don't even have the power of declassification, have held on to documents, for years and years and years, hopefully, usually innocuously, or even unknowingly. And that is not a criminal prosecution, until we get to, today.
SIDNER: They can hold on.
TRUSTY: And that's the consistency within --
SIDNER: But they can have some of the documents that are not -- we are talking about classified documents, classified documents that could have huge impacts.
TRUSTY: Right. And the Presidential Records Act, you can --
SIDNER: So, let me just -- wait, let me just quickly ask you.
TRUSTY: You can say that.
SIDNER: Let me quickly ask you.
TRUSTY: OK. Well if you want to just --
SIDNER: In the letter that you --
TRUSTY: If you want to make speeches, make speeches.
SIDNER: I'm not making a speech, Sir. I let you speak, for quite some time.
In the letter that you and your fellow attorney, sent to Congress, you made it a point, to not opine, as you put it, about whether the documents were classified. Why not, if as you say that your client was doing a, quote, "Standing order," that documents removed from the Oval Office were automatically declassified?
TRUSTY: That document was designed to make a very specific point. What we said is DOJ refuses to show us the affidavit. DOJ refuses to show us the documents, despite me having clearance, to review them. We have no way of knowing whether any of these documents, even by their own terms, would be considered classified, much less declassified, by the President.
The point was to say, to Congress, in a non-partisan way, "This is an overreach." We need to look at the system, why all these different presidents and sometimes vice presidents and congress-people, are having classified documents in their possession. It doesn't translate into a crime, no matter what the underlying facts are.
[21:10:00]
And so, the point of that letter was not to give a full-throated defense, of everything, we could say, at trial, which is numerous types of defenses, and numerous moments of overreaching, by DOJ, but to point out that a congressional fix, an ODNI-based fix is the way to go here.
SIDNER: You also signed a letter, arguing, the former President didn't know what was in the boxes.
But here's what he told Kaitlan Collins.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: When we left Washington, we had the boxes lined up on the sidewalk outside for everybody. People are taking pictures of them. Everybody knew we were taking those boxes. And the GSA, the Government Service, the GSA was the one taking them. They brought them down to Mar-a-Lago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So, you signed this letter, and Donald Trump now says this. Who's lying here?
TRUSTY: Nobody's lying here. Nice try. That's like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
But the bottom line is President Trump didn't sit there, and fold up documents, and newspapers, and pictures, of Celine Dion, and put them into boxes, for transport. There was a whole bunch of people that worked, at the White House that helped at the White House that packed up materials, and sent them, to Mar-a-Lago, while he was still President.
So, we're not going to sit here and pretend that President Trump personally looked at every single box. He knows the general nature, that there are golf shirts, and there are golf scoring cards, and that there are pictures of Celine Dion.
He knows from the unprecedented and unwarranted and unconstitutional search of Mar-a-Lago, that they took things, like passports, that had nothing to do with anything, tax records, medical records. This was a fishing expedition, by prosecutors, who were engaged, in persecution, not following evidence, but criminalizing a non-criminal dispute.
And if we let this genie out of the bottle, it's going to come back, to haunt, generations, where we don't have Executive privilege, we don't have attorney-client privilege, where we create new rules for Donald Trump, because people in power, and people in federal law enforcement, want to go after him.
SIDNER: So --
TRUSTY: So, that's the message of our letter. That's the message -- well go ahead.
SIDNER: That you were sending to Congress.
So, I guess, the question is, why should a President -- no president is above the law, no one in this country, is supposed to be above the law? So, why is he able to just ignore a subpoena? Should that be, OK? TRUSTY: He didn't ignore subpoenas. We talked about the 15 boxes. We talked about the fact that in every other case, in history, it is a long drawn-out process of negotiation. That's probably explains the patience NARA had, with the 2018 letter, from Obama --
SIDNER: OK. But after the FBI -- after the FBI asked for --
TRUSTY: -- that said, "We have millions documents, including classified ones. You'll get them eventually."
SIDNER: -- the boxes, they came back, to find 15 more boxes. And so, they did not pay attention, to the subpoena. So why is that OK, is what I'm asking.
TRUSTY: The last --
SIDNER: If I did that, as a citizen, there'd be hell to pay.
TRUSTY: Well, you also don't have the powers, under the Presidential Records Act, or declassification. And I'm pretty sure you're not President, right now.
But let me just say this. You're ignoring the fact that for the first time in history, a weaponized DOJ, much like the one, described in the Durham Report, with the same culture, maybe not always the same individuals, they decided to use the Presidential Records Act, as a Trojan horse, get inside Mar-a-Lago, pretend that there's some problem there.
By the way, the last time the President had contact with DOJ, before that subpoena, he said, "Attorney, show them where this stuff is, in the storage room." The attorney did that. And he said to the official that has led much of the charge here, the trophy hunt, "If you need anything else, just ask." He was in a negotiating stance from the beginning, through the end.
They said, "Put a lock on that door," and then they were the first ones, to go quiet, and break the lock, two months later, in an unprecedented rate. This is the only president that would face this type of "Ends justify the means" behavior. And as one of his attorneys, we're going to fight it.
SIDNER: All right, Jim Trusty, the DOJ would have a very different story, about that. The FBI certainly disputes what you just said.
But I thank you for coming on. Appreciate your time.
TRUSTY: Through their leaks, they certainly have. But thank you.
SIDNER: Let's bring in CNN Senior Justice Correspondent, Evan Perez. He helped break the CNN Exclusive, on the evidence the National Archives is set to now turn over, to the Special Counsel. In fact, the Special Counsel could have it as we're speaking.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Correct.
SIDNER: What do you make of some of the answers that you just heard, from one of Donald Trump's attorneys, in this case?
PEREZ: Well, I mean, look, I think they have -- they have their work cut out for them, Sara. I mean, they have a lot of problems, with the President who, as you pointed out, ignored a subpoena. He did not turn -- he had his lawyers. His lawyers told the government that they had everything, they had turned over everything.
[21:15:00]
And then, the government learned, from other evidence, that they -- that there was more stuff there, and that stuff was being moved, despite their promise to not do that, not to touch anything, in that room. And so, the FBI goes back, and finds additional classified documents. Those are the facts.
And the President is being investigated, not only for willful retention of classified documents, national security documents that he should not have had, but also for obstructing an investigation. That's a problem.
And so, look, I understand there's a few things he said that I think we can address individually. The comparison to the Clinton tapes, for instance, which is --
SIDNER: Right, and the Obama, yes.
PEREZ: -- right, is one example.
But, look, they have a lot of problems to deal with. And if the President is charged with a crime, it's going to be a very, very nasty legal battle, between the Justice Department, and a former President.
SIDNER: I didn't get to make this point, to him. But I made the point that if I did it, I would be in hot water.
PEREZ: Yes.
SIDNER: He said --
PEREZ: Yes.
SIDNER: -- "Well, you're not the President." Well, then President Trump wasn't President either. He was a former President.
PEREZ: Right. Yes.
SIDNER: And still had those classified documents.
PEREZ: Right.
SIDNER: So, how do you see this, going forward, Evan?
PEREZ: Well, look, I mean, I think there's a lot of signs that Jack Smith, and his team, are working very, very hard, very quickly. They're trying to wrap up. It's not clear whether they are going to be able to speed this up, as much as they hope to. Because, this story that we published tonight, is an example, right? They're trying to get -- the former President's eight days, to challenge NARA, the Archives, from turning over those documents, to the Justice Department, to Jack Smith. And so, if he does that, that just causes more delays, in the systems.
We still are waiting, for some very important witnesses. Sara, you know that Mark Meadows is a big witness. And he saw everything, in both of these investigations. That, we expect, to happen, sometime, before this investigation wraps up.
SIDNER: Evan Perez, thank you, to you, and your team, for breaking this story, for us.
PEREZ: Good job. Thank you.
SIDNER: Thank you. We appreciate it.
Next, a near-catastrophic chase? That's how a spokesperson, for Prince Harry and, his wife, Meghan Markle, described some sort of pursuit, last night, at the paparazzi, here in New York City.
But there are conflicting accounts, now, of what actually happened. You're about to hear, from the taxi driver, who says, he drove the royal couple, at some point. That's ahead.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Just in, we're getting word, of a citizen's arrest, outside the California home, of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, on Monday. A 29-year-old man is now being investigated, for stalking the couple.
Now, this comes, of course, as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle allege a, quote, "Near-catastrophic chase," in New York City. A member of the couple's security detail describes a dangerous scene, involving paparazzi, in the streets.
But there seem to be some conflicting accounts, of what happened.
Harry's spokesman says that, after leaving an award ceremony, for Meghan, with Markle's mom, they tried to make their way, to a private residence, but were hounded by paparazzi, for more than two hours, were swarming them, and endangering the couple, and the public, at large.
They say, the couple switched vehicles more than once ending up, at a Police station, before they could reached their final destination. Harry's team said it could have been fatal.
But a taxi driver, who had them, for just one part of that journey, tells us his part of the story. And it's a little different.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUNNY SINGH, TAXI DRIVER: I was just crossing on 67, going across town, and I see a security guy, asked me if he wants -- if I want a fare. And I said, "Of course." And then, next, he go, pull over. And next minute, you know, they were jumping in back into my cab.
They were kind of nervous, getting in, you know, and stuff like that. I think they've been chasing all day long, right? And then, they were just about to give me the address, where they were going.
We were just making left turns, and right turns, and that's it.
They were not being that aggressive while they were driving behind us.
He was looking around, so he was, you know, nobody's acting suspicious. And after they quitting -- after the -- after paparazzi were in front of the car, they were not moving. So, he got out of the car, and he said, "Hey, listen, move, move, move."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right. The NYPD says there were no collisions, injuries, or arrests.
But Police sources told our Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, John Miller that vehicles were going up, on sidewalks, trying to catch up with the couple. The Mayor of New York cast doubt on whether the chase lasted for that two-hour period.
All of this is, of course, conjuring memories, of what happened to Prince Harry's mom, Princess Diana, who was killed, in a car crash, while being chased, by the paparazzi, in Paris. A nightmare Prince Harry worries might repeat itself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: I'm trying to put a stop to this, because I can't ever imagine, and I don't want to imagine, history repeating itself, right?
Every single time I see a camera, every single time I hear a click, every single time I see a flash, it takes me straight back. So, in that respect, it's the worst reminder, of her life, as opposed to the best.
I feared a lot that the end result, the fact that I lost my mum, when I was 12-years-old, could easily happen again to my wife.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: With me to discuss, our CNN Media Analyst, Sara Fischer; CNN Anchor, Julia Chatterley; and CNN Royal Commentator, Sally Bedell Smith; and former NYPD Lieutenant, Darrin Porcher.
Thank you all for being here.
This has captured, once again, as it always does, the public's attention.
I'm going to start with you, Sara. What do you make of the somewhat conflicting statements? It's really about, how aggressive, or dangerous, this was, I think, at this point, because everyone agrees that something did happen that was problematic.
SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER, AXIOS: Well, when you're in the car, and you have that type of traumatic experience that Harry had, of course, you're going to perceive there to be a lot of danger against you. So, it doesn't surprise me that his account might be perceived as more dangerous, than perhaps what the Police were saying, and what the taxi driver was saying.
But, as media analyst, the big thing that I'm thinking about is, this is going to capture headlines for days. And that's because here, in America, we love stories, about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. It captures our attention, so much.
[21:25:00]
And so, unfortunately, for them, they're in this reinforcing vicious cycle. Something like this happens, because of how much attention they're getting. It's actually going to drive a news cycle. They're going to get more attention. It's going to push the paparazzi, to go harder, the next time.
And so, there's a challenge that they face here. Anytime they talk about something like this happening, it actually makes it even worse.
SIDNER: Let me apologize for being a part of the news cycle, just to get that out of the way.
But Darrin, you are a former NYPD officer. And you worked, on Queen Elizabeth's Protection Unit --
DARRIN PORCHER, FORMER NYPD LIEUTENANT: Yes.
SIDNER: -- which is pretty interesting. I got a lot of questions, I want to ask you, after the show.
But first, what do you make of what we know so far? You're hearing the Mayor say something, the Police are saying something. They don't all match.
PORCHER: When we speak to responsible journalism, where was Sara Sidner, when we needed her? Why weren't you on the street when this was happening?
SIDNER: That's not my day, yes.
PORCHER: But more importantly, on a serious note, it really begs the question of what were the fortifications in place, from the NYPD's protection detail.
SIDNER: Yes.
PORCHER: Oftentimes, the NYPD is not responsible, for individuals, of this magnitude --
SIDNER: Right.
PORCHER: -- such as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. But at the same token, you want to preempt to ensure that they are safe, because you want it to be called, after the fact, to repair something. And so, it goes to what can be done best?
There were two components that are necessary, when you're providing dignitary protection. The first component would be the officers that you see, wearing the suits, and the earpieces. The second component is an enforcement detail. The enforcement detail will be responsible, for arresting people --
SIDNER: Right.
PORCHER: -- and surmising (ph) them, if necessary.
We didn't have the enforcement arm in place, as it relates to this incident. And secondly, we only had a small number of officers that were on this detail. And that's why it manifested to the point, where we're speaking about.
I don't think it ran for two hours. But I do think that this was a troubling event, because we go back to what happened, with Princess Diana, years ago.
FISCHER: Right.
PORCHER: And we have terrible feelings based on --
SIDNER: Absolutely.
PORCHER: -- the paparazzi, doing this pursuit. And now, when we look for the after-action review, what can be done better, so this doesn't happen the next time.
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I mean, we have to look through a prism, on this that I mean, Harry believes that the press killed his mother.
SIDNER: Right.
CHATTERLEY: That's the overlay.
SIDNER: Right.
CHATTERLEY: And I couldn't agree more with you. That backdrop, the defining moment, I think, of his young childhood, losing his mother, will make anything, even at 25 miles an hour, traumatic for him.
SIDNER: Feel.
CHATTERLEY: So, I think you have to overlay that.
But I have to admit, I thought first of losing his mother. The second thing I thought was, I mean two hours, driving in New York City, you could be halfway to Washington.
SIDNER: Yes.
FISCHER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: So that feels slightly weird.
And there were other inconsistencies. Love yellow cabs in New York. Sunny, the cameo, from him?
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: That was -- that felt a little bit weird.
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: Why were they in a yellow cab, quite frankly? So, I think your point about the security situation, and then New York, and questions being asked about whether or not they can be handled, these -- this particular couple, in New York, when we handle presidents here, we handle the United Nations.
SALLY BEDELL SMITH, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: And --
CHATTERLEY: What on earth happened?
BEDELL SMITH: Yes. And, I mean, the thing that occurred to me, immediately, is why couldn't they have averted it? Why couldn't they have just literally, driven by the Carlyle hotel, walked in the errands, and help, and the paparazzis could not have followed them. And, I mean, they would have been saved relatively.
I go back to Diana and Dodi. And I mean, I think you have to look at the judgments that are made along the way. Diana and Dodi were in -- they had been pursued, by paparazzi, for an entire day.
SIDNER: Right.
BEDELL SMITH: And then, they went to the Ritz Hotel. They had dinner. And they had a suite. They were all by themselves. But all of their luggage, and all of their belongings, were up at the apartment that Mohamed Al-Fayed owned.
SIDNER: Right.
BEDELL SMITH: And the decision was taken by Dodi that they had to go there. Why they couldn't have had people go, and bring all their things, back to the Ritz, and be safe, is one of the enduring questions.
But, I mean, I think -- so, I think, in other words, I'm sure Harry was totally traumatized, because it summoned up all those horrible images. But I think nobody was really making -- possibly -- nobody was making really sound decisions, why they let it go on --
SIDNER: Why -- BEDELL SMITH: -- for this long.
CHATTERLEY: Can I say one more thing, if I can? I know we're out of time.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Yes, of course, you can, yes.
CHATTERLEY: Max Foster, our Correspondent --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: -- said it earlier, and it may have changed, and I hope it has in the last few hours. But the suggestion that no one from the family --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: -- had called them?
SIDNER: That's the reporting. It's still the same.
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
BEDELL SMITH: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: It's still the same.
SIDNER: Yes. The Royal Family hasn't called.
CHATTERLEY: That upsets me, because whether you believe this, whether you think it was magnified, in some way? The timing after the coronation is important. Pick up the phone.
BEDELL SMITH: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: I guess that's what makes me sad.
BEDELL SMITH: And then another thing that occurred to me is something really, really dangerous that happened, to Charles and Camilla, back in 2010, when there was legislation, in parliament that raised student tuition. There were horrible riots, in London.
[21:30:00]
And Camilla and Charles went out, doing event. And they were driving up, Regent Street. And these mobs, descended on them. They were throwing trash cans at them. There was a window open. They stuck a stick, into the car, and poked Camilla. They were terrified. This was --
SIDNER: It was just another thing --
BEDELL SMITH: It's another thing, is what --
SIDNER: Another phase.
SIDNER: -- into the history of.
FISCHER: Yes.
SIDNER: Yes.
PORCHER: But you know -- you know what's really unfortunate?
BEDELL SMITH: And -- but --
PORCHER: I'm sorry.
BEDELL SMITH: And they got reinforcements, immediately.
SIDNER: Yes.
BEDELL SMITH: And that's what I wondered too about last night.
SIDNER: Yes, what happened here.
BEDELL SMITH: Why weren't there other people coming to their rescue?
SIDNER: Do you think that the Police were a little bit taken aback, a little bit surprised? Because, they're there to protect you from --
FISCHER: Right.
SIDNER: -- usually attacks that are directed. But they don't -- they're not thinking about the paparazzi. Do you think they were surprised by the numbers of paparazzi --
BEDELL SMITH: Yes.
SIDNER: -- potentially from all over the world trying to get their picture?
PORCHER: Sara, you bring out an interesting point. Oftentimes, where protection details are more focused, on adversaries --
SIDNER: Right.
PORCHER: -- not the paparazzi. In a place, like New York City, you photograph, the videotape, 100 to 200 times a day. So, we just accept the fact that this is something that happens. So, in many instances, the protection details are not focused on the paparazzi.
But we have to remember, why did Meghan and Harry come to the United States? Because they wanted to get away from the atrocities that the paparazzi were committing, overseas, in England.
So, that being said, I think that we really need to take a look back, and say, "What are we going to do, in connection with these reckless paparazzis that are creating public alarm?" Because we had paparazzis on scooters, driving up the wrong way, on sidewalks, putting pedestrians in danger. CHATTERLEY: Yes.
PORCHER: So, the component we have is reckless endangerment. And hopefully, the NYPD will capture images, and take some of these people into custody.
SIDNER: Yes.
PORCHER: Because a lot of these people on these scooters had their license plates covered.
SIDNER: Their license plate was covered, yes.
PORCHER: The windows were blacked out.
SIDNER: Yes.
PORCHER: So, it was clear that they were being surreptitious, in a condo (ph).
SIDNER: There was an intent there.
BEDELL SMITH: Yes.
SIDNER: I just -- can we show that picture, just really quickly, once again, of all of the lights going off, as Meghan and Harry are sort of walking towards the car?
Look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO IS SHOWN OF PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FISCHER: Yes.
SIDNER: Those flashes are all from flashbulbs, going off and off and off and off. And so, it shows you just the amount of paparazzi that surrounds them, wherever they go, whether it is in London --
BEDELL SMITH: Yes.
SIDNER: -- or here, in New York.
All right, we're going to take a break.
BEDELL SMITH: And in L.A. And in L.A.
SIDNER: And in L.A. Wherever they go, in L.A. --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDELL SMITH: I mean, I mean this is something, and it was a --
SIDNER: -- like everywhere.
BEDELL SMITH: -- certain magnitude.
SIDNER: Yes, yes.
BEDELL SMITH: But it's the kind of scene they have seen --
SIDNER: Yes.
BEDELL SMITH: -- over and over and over again.
SIDNER: And over and over again.
BEDELL SMITH: It's just more of them.
SIDNER: Which is why the frustration is so high.
BEDELL SMITH: Yes.
SIDNER: All right. Stay with us.
The taxi driver, who spoke to Harry and Meghan, during a portion, of their car chase, will be live, on "CNN tonight," coming up, at 10 PM.
Now, to the Hill. Indicted Congressman George Santos, known for flagrant lies, has avoided expulsion, for now. What he says about resigning, as some of his colleagues are turning up the heat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOICE OF REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): Resign.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you have to say to those that --
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Save yourself. Have some dignity.
REP. GEORGE SANTOS (R-NY): Like I said, if I could -- if I could understand you all, where my colleague's screaming here.
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Have some dignity.
SANTOS: The reality is this.
VOICE OF BOWMAN: New Yorkers need better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Democratic efforts, to kick George Santos, out of Congress, stalled today, by the House GOP. Rather than go on the record, on whether Santos should be expelled, Republicans voted to move the matter, to the House Ethics Committee, instead.
The indicted New York Republican said he would accept the panel's findings. But for now, he will not resign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wouldn't they be served better, if you were to resign, given that you're facing investigation, from the Ethics Committee? You have multiple charges, federal charges, felonies that you're facing. You don't sit on any committees. How are they better-served with you being here in Congress?
SANTOS: Again, Manu, I was elected, by them, to come represent them. I will continue to do that. I have not, not done my job, since I've gotten here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right, that gaggle soon tuned into chaos, as fellow New York congress-members heckled Santos, and you can hear them off- camera.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Resign.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you have to say to those that --
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Save yourself. Have some dignity.
SANTOS: Like I said, if I could -- if I could understand you all, where my colleague's screaming here.
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Have some dignity.
SANTOS: The reality is this.
VOICE OF BOWMAN: New Yorkers need better. You got to go, man. Come on, son.
SANTOS: How's your ethics -- how's your ethics play going?
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Come on, son.
SANTOS: Aren't you -- aren't you in ethics too, AOC? Come on.
VOICE OF BOWMAN: Resign and go (ph).
SANTOS: Look, I can't -- I can't continue to address you guys, because there's a deranged member, here. So, I'm going to walk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Wow. It didn't end there, by the way. After Santos left, Congressman Bowman, and Georgia Republican, Marjorie Taylor Greene, went head-to-head.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOWMAN: You got to kick him out.
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Go and talk to your President.
BOWMAN: You got to kick --
TAYLOR GREENE: Hey, go talk to Hunter Biden.
BOWMAN: The party has to kick him out.
TAYLOR GREENE: Look, you guys --
BOWMAN: He's embarrassing you all.
TAYLOR GREENE: -- should talk to (ph) Biden. You should be --
(CROSSTALK)
BOWMAN: He's embarrassing you all.
TAYLOR GREENE: Biden is -- you should impeach Biden.
BOWMAN: Impeach Biden for what?
You got to kick him out.
TAYLOR GREENE: Biden's embarrassing you (ph).
BOWMAN: Expel him. And save the party.
TAYLOR GREENE: Nah.
BOWMAN: The party's hanging by a thread.
TAYLOR GREENE: Now, we got to -- we got to get rid of Bidens.
(CROSSTALK)
BOWMAN: The party's hanging --
TAYLOR GREENE: To save the country.
BOWMAN: The party's hanging by a thread.
TAYLOR GREENE: To save the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All righty then.
Joining the table. Sarah Matthews, former Deputy Press Secretary, for the Trump administration; and Ashley Allison, former National Coalitions Director for the Biden-Harris 2020 campaign.
Ladies, thank you for joining us. We've got Sarah here, as well as Julia, still with us. I want to start with you, Sarah. Sarah Matthews.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR FOR BIDEN-HARRIS 2020, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBER: Lot of Sarahs, tonight.
SIDNER: You heard one of the congressmen, saying, "Have some dignity. New Yorkers need better." And this was obviously somebody, from New York, yelling at Santos. Is he right?
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY & 2020 SPOKESWOMAN: He's 100 percent correct. I do wish that George Santos had the dignity to resign. Obviously, we see that isn't going to happen. He's already announced his intent to run for reelection.
But I will say, I do think it might be a little premature, to expel him, solely based on the indictment alone. I think with, in the past, I don't recall any other member or Senator, being expelled just based on an indictment. So, we do need to let the Ethics Committee process play out.
SIDNER: There probably has not been another person, though, in his position that has lied so much. And it has been proven.
So, I'm curious, Ashley, what you make of that, and whether you think like, "Hey, let's put politics aside," which no one ever can, but let's do this -- let's look at what he has done, and say "This is a bad representation of us."
[21:40:00]
ALLISON: It really is. I mean, as Americans, just in general, having someone, like that serving in Congress, I also feel really bad for his constituents. He says, "Oh, they elected me, to represent them." No, they elected a character you developed. They did not elect the real George Santos, because they didn't know who he was --
SIDNER: Right.
ALLISON: -- because he did not tell the truth.
And the reality is, is he isn't getting expelled, right now, because the Republicans have such a slim majority, in the House. Their numbers are not in their favor, when they're trying to pass legislation. And so, it doesn't work, for them. And so, that's where the political nature comes back into it. It is not about whether he did something wrong. Everyone knows he's done something wrong.
SIDNER: Right.
ALLISON: But they need the votes, as Republicans.
SIDNER: Right.
Sara Fischer, can I ask you a quick question on this? Does it surprise you, where we are, right now? Because, I feel like 20 years ago, we may not be in this position.
FISCHER: It's interesting, you say that. I think in the past few years, especially in the digital era?
SIDNER: Yes.
FISCHER: It's allowed people to create online personalities. It's allowed people to be anonymous. It's allowed people to shape their history, and shape their record, in some senses. In another, we have more accountability than ever, because you can just Google the truth.
And what's crazy about the George Santos' story is, by the way, thank God for local news, because it was a local Long Island paper --
SIDNER: That's right.
FISCHER: -- that broke the story.
SIDNER: Right.
FISCHER: But what's crazy about it is that he was able to develop this crazy persona. But also, he was able to get away with it for so long.
SIDNER: Right.
FISCHER: And so, am I surprised that we're here? In a sense, yes, because we should have been more holding up local politicians, to much more higher standards. We should have been investigating them. We should have known this earlier.
But in a way, no, because in the digital era, it's not shocking, to see people, become caricatures, of themselves, online. And that's where we ended up where we are.
SIDNER: And we should state that the Republicans, in his district, have called, for him, to step down.
ALLISON: Yes.
SIDNER: That has not obviously happened. And that's politics, I guess.
CHATTERLEY: It's also -- it's also precedent as well.
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: I think there's been two --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: -- Congressmen expelled --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: -- since the Civil War, I believe.
SIDNER: Yes. CHATTERLEY: So --
SIDNER: Yes. And --
CHATTERLEY: And they were both convicted, so.
SIDNER: I was going to say.
CHATTERLEY: Exactly.
SIDNER: An indictment is not a conviction.
CHATTERLEY: Exactly.
SIDNER: Right.
FISCHER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: So, I guess the Republicans can argue that point.
SIDNER: Yes. And they have.
CHATTERLEY: Perfectly or otherwise. Yes.
SIDNER: All right, stay with us.
Elon Musk, sounding off, again, this time, the multi-billionaire, has some choice words, for the millions of people, out there, who are working from home. We'll discuss, coming up.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, CEO, TESLA, INC.: It's a productivity issue, but it's also a moral issue.
DAVID FABER, CO-ANCHOR OF "SQUAWK ON THE STREET," CNBC: Yes.
MUSK: People need to get off their goddamn moral high horse with their work-from-home bullshit, because they're asking everyone else to not work from home while they do.
FABER: And yet this --
MUSK: It's wrong.
The laptop class is living in la-la land.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: "The laptop class is living in la-la land." That's going to set off a lot of folks. Twitter's and Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk, coming down hard, on the work- from-home culture, slamming it as morally wrong, while other workers still show up in-person.
But Musk is not the only Chief Executive, to draw ire, for ripping remote workers. In Australia, this CEO blames them for slowing the economy there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICOLE DUNCAN, CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GROUP: I am absolutely passionate about people returning to work.
This generation is just selfish. You know, in our younger days, we had to, you know, we caught trains, buses, whatever ferries to get to work. Yes, it did take two or three hours. But, you've got to be in the office because you don't know what you don't know.
We want a vibrant city for visitors to come to. And it needs to look busy. It needs to look vibrant. It doesn't need to look as sort of slow and rambling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right, let us bring in our fabulous panel, ladies.
I'm going to start with you, Julia. Because you said something that I thought was pretty -- was very smart, about what this is, and why we're seeing CEOs, saying like, "No, no, no, you got to come back."
CHATTERLEY: Yes, how long before we get a digital apology, when she can't hire workers, after saying some of that stuff?
Look, there's a balance. I was saying to you that I think we're going to talk about a whole new branch of economics, which is productivity, paranoia. And this view from CEOs that when they can't see their people, there's the automatic assumption that they're faking, working.
ALLISON: Yes.
SIDNER: And we can talk about the ease of doing that, quite frankly. But I do think there is a balance, somewhere. And Elon Musk is never shy about sharing his opinion. But there are CEOs out there, and it depends on industries --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: -- that are very fearful, of their workers, not doing anything. But the tech sector is a specific example. The winds have changed. They're now firing people.
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: In this situation, if you say to a worker, "I want you in the office, and innovation requires people engaging. I need you in the office." "I don't want to. I'm going to resign." "Awesome. Off you go. You're doing me a favor."
SIDNER: Because there's a lot of people out there.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, they're firing people.
SIDNER: Supply and demand issue.
CHATTERLEY: Yes. A lot of people are going to stay working from home.
SIDNER: And Sarah?
MATTHEWS: I think there are --
SIDNER: OK.
MATTHEWS: Oh, I think there are arguments to be made, about returning to the office, and productivity and things like that, isolation. It's nice to go in-person, and see your colleagues.
I think what the issue was that Elon Musk came at it, from the wrong angle. Him saying it's morally wrong?
CHATTERLEY: That's Elon Musk.
MATTHEWS: Yes. I mean, it's like saying --
CHATTERLEY: He's always the wrong angle. It's like what he said. He fixes (ph) everything.
ALLISON: Exactly.
SIDNER: People take issue with him --
CHATTERLEY: And the path of destruction --
SIDNER: -- that giving that message.
ALLISON: Yes.
MATTHEWS: For sure.
SIDNER: Because what is morally wrong about being able to do your job. And in some places, they've shown productivity go up. You work from home, sometimes, right? Or all the time?
ALLISON: Unless I'm on set, I work from home.
SIDNER: OK.
ALLISON: And I never thought, before COVID, that working from home would be something that I liked. And I have to tell you, I love it. It is the ability, to kind of create your own schedule, but still get the work done.
SIDNER: Right.
ALLISON: That's the goal, at the end of the day.
I think it's comical that Elon Musk wants to talk about morals. I mean, there are so many other things that he should be worried about --
CHATTERLEY: Someone about (ph).
ALLISON: -- morality. So, he can take two steps to the side and sit down. But I also feel that it's about options. If you want to have a hybrid workplace, where some people, who thrive off of coming? I'm also an introvert. So being around a lot of people, in the office is draining, and it's sometimes distracting.
SIDNER: Yes.
ALLISON: So, if you want to come into work? Great, have an office space. If you don't? The one point I will say is, my family, we were in D.C., the other day, and walking around downtown D.C.
SIDNER: Yes.
ALLISON: And it was rather quiet, in the middle of the day.
SIDNER: Yes.
ALLISON: Because people aren't -- and businesses are suffering.
SIDNER: Yes.
[21:50:00]
ALLISON: And so, I don't think we have to revert back to the way we all commuted, to work, pre-COVID. But I do think we have to think about how we keep our economy thriving, and small businesses open, so that they can continue to keep their employees, employed, even if they don't get to work from home.
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: That's such a great point.
SIDNER: Yes.
FISCHER: Yes, and by the way --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHATTERLEY: The communities benefit.
SIDNER: Yes.
FISCHER: -- his point about people who can't work from home, like that did -- it hit me hard.
ALLISON: Yes.
FISCHER: Because I really do think about service workers, what they had to go through in the Pandemic.
SIDNER: Yes.
FISCHER: Again, it's just a delivery problem.
But to your point about choice, it's carrot and the stick. It's got to be a situation, I think, where you give workers choice, but you incentivize them to come in.
ALLISON: Yes.
FISCHER: And that way, you don't have resentment. People have the choice they need to be as productive as possible, to your point, paranoia, productivity.
CHATTERLEY: Always the hard one (ph).
FISCHER: But, at the same time, it doesn't force you to take these very stiff measures that could impact your ability to recruit people.
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
SIDNER: That is a really good point. I think we're at the -- we're at the end of this segment, because we've got -- we, ladies, could just go on and on. I know.
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
ALLISON: Yes.
SIDNER: For the next couple of hours.
Sara Fischer, Julia Chatterley, Sarah Matthews, and Ashley Allison, thank you all. That was fun.
ALLISON: Thank you.
FISCHER: Thank you.
SIDNER: All right, now to remarkable new images, of the most famous shipwreck, of all time, never-before-seen views of the Titanic, when we come back.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: This is so cool, you all, fascinating new images, of the Titanic wreckage. Check them out behind me.
(VIDEO -- DEEP SEA MAPPING REVEALING NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN VIEW OF TITANIC WRECKAGE)
SIDNER: A team of scientists, using deep sea mapping, to create a digital replica, of the wreckage, at the bottom of the North Atlantic. It is the largest underwater scanning project, in history, gathering more than 700,000 new images, of the ship, and letting scientists, zoom in and out, for the very first time. It could help unearth new details, about how the Titanic sank, in 1912, taking more than 1,500 lives with it. Experts are calling this treasure trove of new images a game-changer.
All right, coming up, who stole Dorothy's Ruby Slippers? It was not, as most would have thought, the Wicked Witch of the West. In real life, they have just caught the alleged thief. A "Wizard of Oz" mystery has been solved. And we have all of that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLINDA, FICTIONAL CHARACTER PLAYED BY BILLIE BURKE, "THE WIZARD OF OZ": Tap your heels together three times.
(DOROTHY GALE TAPS HEELS THREE TIMES)
GLINDA: And think to yourself, "There's no place like home."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: And there may be no place like jail, for the person, who stole Dorothy's Ruby Slippers.
A federal grand jury has indicted a Minnesota man, for allegedly stealing an original pair of "The Wizard of Oz" slippers, nearly two decades ago. They were swiped from the Judy Garland Museum, in 2005, but were covered in 2018.
They're valued at around $3.5 million. And no, sadly, those are not actually rubies. Glad to see them (ph).
Thank for joining us.
"CNN TONIGHT" with Alisyn Camerota, starts, right now.
Hey, Alisyn?
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT: Sara, he just wanted the power to click his heels, and be able to go home.
SIDNER: I do too.
CAMEROTA: Of course.
SIDNER: But not for $3.5 million.
CAMEROTA: Right. Yes. Good point. That's why he sold them.
Excellent, Sara. Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone --
