tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN April 16, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
did you know comcast business goes beyond fast with a gig-speed network. complete internet reliability. advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone connected. video monitoring. that's huge. did you guys know we did all this stuff? no. i'm not even done yet. wow. business tv. cloud apps and support. comcast business goes beyond at&t. start with internet and voice for just $59.90 a month. it's everything a small business owner needs. comcast business. beyond fast. to save 30% on all the medications we carry. so go directly to petmeds.com now.
good evening, for someone that's not worried about what's in the mueller report, the president has staffers and former staffers afraid of being named in it and facing his wrath. john cain was first to report tensions are high with those that cooperate with the mueller probe. we are learning white house officials are fearing the president's anger. the question is why? we have new reporting on that from the white house. remember, the president repeatedly claims the report completely exonerates him. he tweeted, no collusion, no obstruction. the second time in all-caps. it is the bumper sticker version of a long running theme. >> i have not read the mueller report. i haven't seen the mueller report. as far as i'm concerned, i don't
care about the mueller report. i have been totally exonerated. no collusion, no obstruction. and i'm off to dealing with china, i'm off to dealing with north korea and venezuela and all the problems in this world. i'm not worried about something that never, ever should have taken place. >> total exoneration, he says, whether that's true or not, we don't know. we could know thursday when the redacted report arrives, whether it represents the full document and we'll get into that tonight as well a recent episode from 1999 from attorney general barr raises questions on what we may see on thursday, despite having never seen it, then why the concern? why is he lashing out on the camera and online and telling cnn and people that corporate are worried that, i'm worried now, he's going to go bonkers, consider that white house counsel don mcgahn gave 30 hours of conversations and he might have factored in the decision or lack of one on obstruction of justice.
the president has his own way about telling the truth to potentially criminal law enforcement. >> it's called flipping. it almost ought to be legal. i know about flipping for 30, 40 years, i have been watching flippers. everything is wonderful, then they get ten years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is or as high as you can go. >> he said that about michael cohen. he praised his former campaign chairman for failing to break. it's unreasonable to believe, the president might go bonkers about what some of his people might have said to mueller. maybe it's nothing incriminating. maybe embarrassing. former people were under pressure to sell books, not under penalty of perjury. so, what is it? is the president angry about dirty laundry or deeds? or neither? gracious exoneration and happy with everyone for doing their civic duty and fulfilling their public they serve by telling the
whole truth. given the tweets and the sound bytes and how he reacts in general before damaging news, it's not sure if it will be one of his significant stories so far. we are waiting for an impact. what are you learning, kaylin? >> reporter: well, anderson, we know president trump is eager for the report to come out on thursday because he thinks it will back up his claims that he is exonerated. even though they have not read it. they don't know what's going to be in the report. they think at best it will paint an unflattering portrayal during this investigation. >> is there any expectation among white house aides to what will or won't be specifically in the report?
>> reporter: they do not think it will contain bombshells. they know where it came down on occlusion or obstruction. they're worried about the details. the people inside the white house that used to be in the white house, and the president's allies all know that so many of them have sat down with the special counsel for dozens of hours. they will be able to back this up what the claims are with statements from them, with dates, e-mails, all of these documents to support what's in this report. so they're worried the details will be the damaging aspect. not that there will be bombshells but they're worried it will paint an unflattering portrayal. >> we don't know the detail in the original report in terms of what people around the president have actually said. how much would be in a finished report. >> no they don't know that. the white house maintained publicly they and president trump still have not read this, don't know what the redactions will be, they don't know that
the testimony, currently white house officials and the president have told the special counsel, things that could relate to the president's temper or the way he operates inside the west wing. things that may not be a big deal or criminal or anything like that. it could be embarrassing for this president. they know how he is and reacts to coverage. while he is not expected to read this report page-by-page, allies fear he will act accordingly and grow anger at them based on what they told the special counsel, you have to keep in mind, some sat down for over 12 hours. >> you heard he is not expected to read them. according to reporting, he's not a big reader. if you would think maybe this would be something that would interest him closely. no? >> reporter: yeah, but people close to the president have known he's not a big reader. they're not expecting him to do through this line-by-line,
instead his legal team will do it and they will brief him on it. what we are learning is most white house officials say they want to read this report because they are curious about what's in it. anderson, they said they might wait until they leave the white house to actually read it. >> thanks very much. let's get perspective from two insiders, who know what it's like to have a special counsel in their lives. joe lockhart and paul begala. clinton senior adviser also with us, former trump campaign aide michael caputo. he testified. paul, obviously, we have no idea what the people said to mueller, whether there is anything that should be of concern to the president. should the people around mueller be concerned? >> it's a world turned upsidedown. they seem to be concerned about telling the truth. we know that paul manafort lied
and michael cohen lied and george papadopoulos lied. the rest august to be given the benefit of the doubt. they seem to be worried about the fact that they told the truth. this is holy week. christ, you should know the truth. the truth shall set you free. this president the truth should scare the pants off them. it's really quite topsy-turvy. >> paul, you worked with somebody that has been known to have flashes of anger. just because someone tells the truth, it doesn't mean the boss is going to like it. >> in fact in that case, everyone that testified told the truth. even ken starr didn't charge one person around bill clinton with lying about that investigation or that affair. in fact, after the report came out, you know what happened? bill clinton apologized to me and to joe, because he had, in fact, lied about having that that affair. that's how the truth works. this president has to apologize to this team for putting them in
this awful spot instead of the team worrying a they will tell the truth. >> joe, i know this was about 20 years ago. everyone was bracing for the starr report. is there some anxiety concern similar to what you experienced while waiting? >> i think it's similar in some respects. but you will remember, we were on the same side of this fight. we were fighting with the lawyers because they didn't want to put out a rebuttal of the report and they made a valid point, which is, we don't want to be charged with reports that we have been charged with. at the end of the day they realized that we needed to have something that looked at all of the evidence that hasn't been leaked from the grand jury testimony. these guys are in a tough spot. i liken this to president bush mission accomplished. they've set the bar so high at total exoneration on both obstruction and collusion and i think what we are going to see is a lot of black redactions, in
between, we will see a lot of where there was improper contact with the russians and lots of things that we already know about obstetrics or instruction and a few more. i think don mcgahn feels like the wild card. 30 hours debriefed by the new white house counsel, that's what i think they're worried about. >> michael, you were interviewed by the special counsel's team, you described it as a less than pleasant experience. first of all, are you concerned about anything you may have said? or should folks in the white house be concerned about a mueller report of what they said? >> first of all, i want to congratulate joe lockhart, saying he is going to read the mueller report signature on a lawn chair at the end of ken starr's driveway. i thought that was incredible. at the same time, all those
folks that testified, a lot of them actually are concerned i believe that they may have said something inadvertently as well. as you guys know, that's entirely possible. i think they're concerned about the ire of the president and his supporters. of course, but i mean, more important, not more importantly, also importantly, i think they will become very famous people in america very quickly. they've all kept their heads down, the former and white house staffers. now they will be in front of the stage. >> that will be uncomfortable. like, for example, they will start getting death threats. i've gotten 59 of them. i had two people criminally charged in the last ten days. they will be right in the middle of a jackpot they were trying to avoid for a long time. in the end, i think this is about impeachment or taken, there will be no collusion coming out of this report. there will be enough of a path
leading the bread crumbs towards ob trucks based impeachment. i think it's about impeachment or marching toward and certainly a dozen hearings on the matter of obstruction. so those folks can count on a lot of legal fees. they will be in front of congress several times. >> paul, i saw you nodding your head. i wonder if it's fair a testimony to mueller it might end up in this report, should they have any expectation of privacy? >> no, because this is the life we have chosen. michael makes a good point. we're on the opposite side of the political aisle. i feel people's lives will be upended by this. what a world we live in. you know who didn't testify to mueller? donald trump. why? because according to his lawyer, john dowd, the president's lawyer told woodward, if he testifies he will be wearing an orange jumpsuit because he said
he is a bleeping liar. that's what the president's lawyer said about the president. michael didn't have that option. heels not above the law. this president is going to perhaps slip the noose into because he avoided testifying when every other normal american had to. >> joe, there may be some fine embarrassing details about the president in the report. but to michael's point, nancy pelosi says that's not a road she would go down or pass the senate at all. so, therefore, what point is it? >> i don't think she wants to do impeachment. we may get to the report this is so redactive and what the attorney general has interpreted or established or many established that that picture. the only way to get this grand jury testimony. the underlying the meat of the case is to go to court. if gong congress goes to court. they have to have an ongoing legal concern and impeachment could do that.
that could bring the spectre -- >> is that wise for democrats? >> it's politically ricky for democrats. at the end of the day, democrats are going to have to decide, are we going to let them bury this report or take the necessary steps to expose the report? we'll have to see. >> paul, from a political standpoint, what do you make of joe's scenario there? >> legally they may have to. i don't support impeachment. crazy me, i'm going to wait until we read the report until i draw conclusions. right now, i don't support impeachment. if you want to discredit trump, the way to do it is in the election. democrats august to do it in the election than through impeachment. that may change if it brings impeachable conduct. joe is right. maybe, if mr. barr, the attorney general, who likes mr. trump,
whitewashes this so much they may use that as a lever to get the facts before congress. >> michael, i'm sorry for the threats you have been receiving. that's awful for you. >> i appreciate it. on thursday, thanks a lot. on thursday the script is going to flip from collusion to obstruction i think we all know that. >> we appreciate you being with us. thank you very much. up next, what a democratic lawmaker has to say about reporting and what his colleagues are about to get. and saving grace. what paris firefighters were able to recover is extraordinary. what they have managed to preserve from the notre dame fire. france's president has given a timeline for rebuilding. we'll have all the details tonight on "360." feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin and relief from symptoms caused by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens.
boom! i fell 22 feet. i just remember climbing up the tree. next thing i know, i hit the ground. completely shattered my pelvis, in the middle of the woods. i called my wife, she thought i was jokin'. i said, "man, i'm not... i'm not." i was so lucky that day... saved my life. (vo) there for you when it matters most. get unlimited on the best network, with apple music included. and save big when you switch. only on verizon. it comes to the investigation into this president? do you really believe attorney general barr read a nearly 400-page report in one day? and that his 4-page summary is the whole truth? i'm tom steyer, and i'm organizing an effort to to release the full mueller report now and let the american people decide. if you think we have a right to read the report for ourselves,
you can call the attorney general at this number. our tax dollars paid for the report. don't let him cover up the truth. we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer.
but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream. my dream car. with the creamy taste of philly, it turns out, they want me to start next month. she can stay with you to finish her senior year. things will be tight but, we can make this work. ♪ now... grandpa, what about your dream car? this is my dream now. principal we can help you plan for that . tonight's headline, white
house officials feel the anger ahead of the mueller report. we're going to talk about the possible roots of that anger. he's been venting lately on twitter, which certainly fits a pattern. the question is what happens thursday when the redacted report arrives. fear and loathing aside, how will democrats who control the house and are demanding to see more? a democrat that sits on the committee, i spoke to him before time. could he have been given a heads-up on the content of the report or do you think he's covering his bases? >> well, i think he's concerned. the white house did not calculate their white house counsel testified to mueller. i think he's concerned about the obstruction of justice issues and what the white house counsel would have told mueller. >> they might be worried, the
report might have made him angry at them, should everyone that talked to mueller should assume one day who what they say would become public? >> i think in an investigation like this, if you work for the white house counsel, you should assume this will become public. especially as mueller's report was going to go to congress. what is surprising to me is the president nor anyone on his team actually talked to the white house counsel or some of the aides to see what they told mueller. this is why they're concerned. they're worried about what might have been shared. >> there are four categories that barr has said he will use in terms of what to redact. one of them is about third parties. and it's not clear exactly what he means by that, he said it doesn't apply to the president. do you think it possibly applies to members of the president's staff?
>> well, it shouldn't. and barr has not been transparent in this process. ordinarily, an attorney general sits down and comes to an agreement about what should be redacted and he hasn't followed any of that. what we need to do is see the report, what the redactions are, see if they are fair and push to see more if he has not been transparent. >> how long, i mean, if there are a lot of redactions that democrats feel are improbably, how long a battle? i mean, that could very easily become a legal battle that could drag on for in the past in somewhat similar circumstances, strike down for years? >> it could. i don't think that's good for the country or the president. even if they're embarrassing details in the report. the president should be for getting it all out there and moving on, let's get the facts out there so we can focus on issues that people care about and the other thing is barr
would at least show the report to nadler, the chair of the judiciary and minority leader. i think we should be able at the very least in private share the report with the key leadership and committee chairs. >> why is this so important? you can look at this and say speaker pelosi has passed and the senate and counsel ruled out criminal proceedings, so regardless of what the report says, what's going to come of it? >> well, it's parent because the american people should know whether there was misconduct. the president or its subordinates cite i violated the law or engaged in behavior that is inappropriate. >> that has an implication for democracy. maybe we need to strengthen the laws and rules to prohibit it.
it's important to understand that we haven't seen a single sentence of the mueller report and bill barr has characterized this as exonerating, but bob mueller never has, in fact, numbers of mueller's team have leaked information saying that the report, particularly on obstruction of justice could be much more damaging than barr is saying. so the public should just know what they paid for, which is what did mueller find? >> congressman, appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you, anderson. up next, more on what it's like for a white house under fire. two men that worked for five presidents between them. how they think the president's team is preparing. ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best.
here among white house staffers, people lashing out, days away from facing the consequences of cooperating with robert mueller. in the old civics book version, that will be no consequence, in today's modern day, there might be a different story. no one is receiving a presidential of freedom. david axelrod, if you were if president trump's inner circle tonight and you had gone in front of mueller and told the truth. would you be worried? >> yeah, i think so, because we know that this isn't a president that's going to give him a big pat on the back for being opened and sharing the intimate details with the president and so on. he is going to react. if he feels that someone diamond
him out. here we already know that he exalts manafort for not cooperating and condemns cohen for cooperating. so they understand what the dynamics, i think one thing is you may have a plan to deal with this, how you will react. what requires a reaction. what doesn't -- do you put a report out or not. the whole thing can get blown up in a matter of seconds if he picks up his phone and starts tweeting and that is a very real possibility. >> david gergen, in terms of temperament, you worked for a number of presidents. you worked for president nixon when he felt under siege. obviously i have to ask you this question about one republican source to go bonkers?
>> well, as i can tell you and the nixon administration as a staff assistance and i knew a report were coming about who was doing what inside the white house, what the president said, i would be very worried. there is temptation inside a place like that when the sexs were so high for people to proceed and we had a president nixon who was drinking at the time. al haig was effectively running the country. so there were many as pictures you would fought want out. james schlesinger told the military, the brass, if you get an order from the president to hit the nuclear button, don't do it. call me. you cannot do anything unless you clear it with me or henry kissinger. those were the types of steps
that were company. i would worried about what was said and what was done by the president with regard to the obstruction. we know from what barr said, himself, it wasn't all that transparent. we know that mueller found evidence that could add up to obstruction by decided there was more evidence the other way. it was a close call. he decided not to make that close call. this means there is evidence in this report that the president on the one hand may have been obstructing. but there are bound to be something there, that was giving mueller pause. and he said the president is not exonerated under question of obstruction. >> david axelrod, you heard in the previous segment, and they were talking about democrats and moving towards impeachment. even just to keep some sort of a legal case going if there are a lot of redactions, they want to pursue that, they need to have a legal case. i'm wondering what you have about that idea.
pelosi and congressman adler have said they're not thinking about impeachment and there is some political danger in the democrats for that. >> yeah, i know, it's really complex. yes, they want a pull airing of what happened. i don't think they want the hot potato of impeachment thrown back into the middle of the debate. that decision has been made. but there may be elements of this report that are so compelling or so disturbing that the movement for impeachment, you know, picks up steam again. i don't know, i heard joe say that he thought that they may need to do this for reasons of pursuing the case. there have to be other grounds like, for example, national security grounds to pursue this report. because there are obvious implications for national security that may not been apparent or the full testimony
may not be apparent in this report. so, you know, i think this is, you know, if they're nervous in the white house, there also may be some nerves in congress or among the leadership of congress as well, because this has been put to bed and i don't know that necessarily the leadership wants impeachment to come back. >> david axelrod, david gergen, thank you very much. up next, the president by attorney general william barr is raising questions now how he may redact parts of the mueller report, it's fascinating. we'll take a look at it ahead. the (new) roomba i7+ is your floor's best friend. only roomba uses 2 multi-surface rubber brushes to grab and remove pet hair. and the roomba filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba. thwho see things others can't. they're the ones who see a city that make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders
as the future of aerodynamics. at dell technologies, we see it too. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. ♪ pardon the interruption but this is big! now at t-mobile buy any samsung galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free!
[ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay. and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time.. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.
that four-page summary of the nearly two-year-long investigation is not something attorney general barr did. 30 years ago he received a summary on a controversial issue that came under attack. randi kaye has details. >> reporter: october 1999, a much younger william barr caught up in a legal battle with congress. at the time he was a head of the office of legal counsel in the first bush white house. he had authored a controversial memo that said the fbi could forcibly seize people in foreign countries without consent of that country's government.
>> some officials are calling the new fbi directive the president's snatch authority. one prime target might be panama's general noriega. >> reporter: news of the controversial memo surprised even president george h.w. bush. >> i'm embarased to say i'll have to get back to with you your question. >> reporter: as with the mueller report today, barr was asked decades ago to provide his full legal opinion to congress. instead, barr offered a 13-page summary. he reasoned as head of the justice department legal counsel, he provided advice on a confidential basis. still, the chair of the house judiciary committee at the time wrote this letter to barr's boss, the attorney general, requesting the full memo. it is my understanding that the opinion is unclassified and that it does not discuss ongoing investigations or litigation. therefore, can i see no damage that would result from disclosure. barr refused. wanting congress to trust his
summary. so barr was called to testify. as nyu law professor ryan goodman noted on justsecurity.org, barr argued opinions from his office had been treated in the past as confidential. the chair quickly pointed out. doj published other opinions up until 1985. the outrage of the memo continued. secretary of state james baker tried to play it down. >> this procedure will not be used absent a full inner agency discussion of all aspects of it. >> reporter: finally, in 1993, long after congress first subpoenaed the full report, it was made public. barr was long gone from his position at the doj. the clinton administration published barr's full 29-page opinion, allowing the public to see it for the first time. it turns out barr omitted key
principle conclusions in his summary to congress. in it, barr failed to disclose his full 1999 opinion concluded the president has the power to authorize actions that violate the u.n. charter. also, that the attorney general as well as the president have executive power to authorize overseas abductions. >> it ought to be a very rare thing. we can't be an international rambo wandering around doing whatever we want, regardless of international law. >> reporter: another key omission. barr failed to tell lawmakers that in his full opinion from 1989, he concluded that the president can override customary international law. he had told congress that the full document is strictly a legal analysis of the fbi's authority, as a matter of domestic law. details from another time, now under the microscope. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> joining me now someone who criticized what barr did back
then, a law school professor and senior analysts. jeffrey, given your only in of barr's 1989 memos i wonder what went through your mind when you saw principle conclusions in his letter summarizing mueller's report? >> well, you know, anderson, athletes and dancers have signature moves and so do lawyers. and bill barr's is sort of a four-step process. first refuse and deny, delays, second, summarize, third, slant and four omit. so he was there asked by a congressional committee for the opinion. he refused and delayed. second, when asked to give something, he summarized. third, when he offered the conclusions, he slanted it toward his client. and then when the opinion was released three years later, it turned out it was the most unfavorable conclusions to his
client. have you the most familiar feeling when you watch someone do something you've seen before. the question is something omitted and slanted? we'll find that out on thursday i guess. >> it's fascinating what he is saying. does this raise questions about the credibility of his mueller report summary first of all? >> i think it raises questions of whether or not this is a pattern of behavior he has engaged in. i will hold judgment until i see what he actually releases in the report on thursday. i think it also the accusations he withheld some information also are as relevant, if not just as relevant as allegations that he had mistakenly portrayed the law. so some of the arguments about his 1989 memo are that he actually got the law wrong. and so what i'm looking for on
thursday is whether or not the facts that are revealed in the report show that he got the law on obstruction wrong. >> think about one thing harold said. three years, it took three years to get the underlying document and given the way the legal system works, i wouldn't be surprised if it takes three years or potentially never that the house of representatives gets access to the full unredacted mueller report and that would mean we'll never know for sure whether he redacted -- >> why does it take that long? >> because the legal system works slowly. i mean, harold can answer why it took three years in that circumstance. but you know that the white house is going to fight and the justice department is going to fight district court, circuit court, supreme court potentially and you know it could be more than one round. there could be other agencies that want to redact things.
so you know, what makes us even more frustrating potentially is we won't know what he actually redacted. >> professional, why did it take three years? >> well the office of legal counsel, the legal department, the counsel's office, where i used to work. they used to publish their opinions. in fact, they published them all through the mid-'80s under republican administrations when ted olsen was the head. starting around the time that barr became the head, they started to declare them confident, or increasingly, they started to call them drafts so that never payment final. when someone tried to get them they would say they were legally privileged. the comment was made we have to withhold judgment. i've known bill barr for 39 years. he's a lawyer of considerable
repute. you have to look for the 13 chime of the clock. we've now had three. first his you know unsolicited letter about obstruction. second a statement about spying. and then third this kind of signature move. so it makes one worried as to the possibly that he told this one also. >> first of all, does it make sense to you, as someone who redacted documents, should it take three weeks to go through the 400-some pages of the mueller report to redact? >> no. so, first of all, depending on how many people you put on it, you can get it done in a couple of days. secondly, i think the thing that hasn't been mentioned enough. jeff should comment since he was on a similar special prosecutors force, mueller's team was a team. it was people who were extremely experienced with handling these kind of materials. they knew the pressure that there was under for public release and they would have done i assume everything to make it release ready. and i think what the leaks that
we heard about the summaries fit into that. if there were sources and methods, information on intelligence, that would have been put down into a footnote that could be easily redacted. they've tried to keep the narrative clean. a lot of what you do that has classified material is do exactly that kind of redaction. so three weeks makes it more and more suspicious. finally, it is very rare that at additional levels of review that someone says, somebody else redacted this, now i'm going to unveil it. people just add more redactions until it starts to look like a piece of swiss cheese so. >> i'm sorry, there is another point about the timing, though, it's one thing no delay three weeks. it's another thing to come out of the box immediately after two days and, you know, give a clean bill of health to the president of the united states. you know, it would be one thing he he delayed the whole thing. but he actually embraced a very
favorable interpretation to the president and then made everybody wait for three weeks acting as, letting the impression set in that there was essentially nothing to see here. >> go ahead. >> the release of the letter though, it did in some ways bo, the attorney general in. because the report is going to come out. now we'll see whether or not it is as transparent as the attorney general says it's going to be or if like harold says, it's going to be a document that looks more like swiss cheese. but we will know one way or another whether he is redacting so much information as to hide what was in the actual report. >> interesting. well, we'll be seeing it. thanks very much. all right. let's check in with chris. see what he is working on. chris. >> oh, the intrigue, anderson, the intrigue. i can't take it anymore. we have mike isikopf on tonight, the famous reporter reported on
this situation with our now a.g. barr back in the '80s when this was going on. >> kind of dating him. >> look at the head of hair on isikopf. he has nothing to worry about. the man is ageless. he was there then. he understands the context there and now. and remember what our starting point is. congress has this type of clearance for classified information. you know, the idea that starting with some redactions are okay for congress is really not necessarily a reasonable argument. so, what should be expected color coded or not and what you can expect from a.g. barr and the argument of the night is going to be he showed you who he is. he showed you what he is about. don't be surprised. we also have the cardinal on tonight, dolan is here to talk to people what he believes comes next after notre dame. >> all right. chris, thanks, very much. look forward it to. that's in about 13 minutes from now. coming up next, new information about what happened in the first moments when the
i got this mountain bike for only $11. dealdash.com, the fair and honest bidding site. we sold an ipad worth $505 for less than $24. a stand mixer for less than $20. a 4k television for under $2. a macbook pro for under $16. as well as a playstation 4 for under $16. and brand new cars for less than $900. dealdash.com offers hundreds of auctions every day. all auctions start at $0 and everything must go. and don't forget, we offer a full 90
day money back guarantee on your first bid pack purchase. i won these bluetooth headphones for $20. i got these three suitcases for less than $40. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com today and see how much you can save. there are auctions going on right now, so what are you waiting for? there is new details tonight in the investigations into the fire at notre dame. according to the paris prosecutor, the first fire alarm went off at 6:20 p.m. local time on monday. the fire was not discovered in the roof of the cathedral until the second alarm went off 23 minutes later. investigators are treating the fire as an accident. also tonight, a vigil in paris in honor of the sacred site that has watched over the city for monthan eight centuries. ♪
as the world has mourned, emmanuel macron says he wants notre dame rebuilt in five years. so far french business leaders have pledged to donate more than $700 million which experts say may take closer 10 to 15 years to complete or at least make a lot of headway in. a priest who helped victims of the 2015 massacre and served in afghanistan is being hailed justifiably as a hero. father jean marc fournier is the captain of the fire brigade. he tells cnn he went back in to the cathedral to help salvage some of the relics and artifacts, including the crown of thorns which believers say was worn by jesus. >> if you stood and looked up, you would see stone arches. if you looked down from above you would see a vast lead roof so what was burning with such intensity here? to find that out you have to look between the two structures where the investigators say they
believe the fire started and that is in this huge wooden roof, this attic space between those two structures. this was made of 13,000 trees of forest that would have covered about 39 football fields and once these ancient timbers started burning there was just nothing they could do to stop that. what they could do was try to rescue what was below. look at some of the extraordinary artifacts they were trying to get out, some of which we're not yet sure of the future of right now. for example, there is this relic that believers say holds part of the original cross. one of the nails of the cruxifiction. there's many dating back to the 16th century that are still not sure about their future right now. we're not sure what happened with some of those. of course we know the roof is gone and the spire up above. but the most holy relic of this cathedral, crown of thorns which again believers think was part of what happened with jesus at
the crucifixion, that was indeed rescued. we also know the organ, one of the most famous musical instruments in the world with 8,000 pipes dating back to medieval times, that survived. we know the main bell which range out at the end of world war twa and so many other events, that survived. the big rose windows that helped draw 13 million viewers a year, those survived. of course we know the two main towers up front that have the famous gargoyles on them, they are also intact. so the real remarkable story here is not merely that there was such a terrific fire but that as they rebuild, there's so much to rebuild upon, anderson? >> tom, thanks very much. another bit of good news. according to the french ambassador of the united states, the copper rooster that sat atop the spire of the cathedral has been recovered intact. the ceo of the metropolitan museum of art. thank you for being with us.
i'm sorry it's under these circumstances. when you hear frances president saying he wants this done in five years, that seems ambitious, certainly. >> yeah. >> there are apartments in new york that have taken longer than five years to renovate. >> i think it is unrealistically ambitio ambitious, but it speaks to an aspiration that is very powerful. to do this work the way it needs to be done so that the building stands for another 800 years, it's going to take longer but the fact that the world stepped up as it has is remarkable and that's the most important part. >> it's sad that it took firemen -- there was renovation work going on. clearly it needed renovation work. but certainly the outpouring in this. it has really touched people, even people who are not catholic, who have never been there. i was surprised yesterday just by react from people, even on the street, coming up to me and elsewhere. >> it is a monument for everyone. and anyone who visits the cathedral knows it is people from all over the world come. they come to celebrate.
they come to celebrate this great monument for its beauty, its historical significance, and just its place in the middle of paris. it's an icon of the city. i think that's what people are reacting to. it's right in middle of the city. it's part of the heart and soul of that city. so people feel very much a loss. >> it's also a living building. it's not a museum, it's a community church and there are masses there and the history of it -- i was talking to somebody earlier today that talked about it's many layers to this building. >> there really is. it's a great religious monument. it's the cathedral of paris but you can walk through as a visitor to the cathedral and there's a mass going on. and people are walking around the perimeter, looking at things, celebrating the building. it is so much more than just one thing, and that's part of what makes it so compelling for people. everyone has a story about their relationship with this church. >> just to find the craftsmen, there aren't enough craftsmen
that have the skill. i'm sure they used hundreds of craftsmen when over the years as this was built. it's been built and rebuilt in many different way, as have other churches. >> yes. the original campaign took more than 100 years. so craftsmen would spend a whole lifetime working on this building and never see it coming to fruition. many of those skills are fundamentally lost. we can rebuild it. we can rebuild it beautifully and it will look like it did, but it won't have the same level of craft as when it was built in the 13th century. >> the building was 16 years old and they decided to venerate it. they made a decision to change the way the whole building would be constructed. they're going to restore it to the building we knew of last year. bring it back to what it looked like before the fire which is what people most remember. if you look inside the church, they made a decision to change the way the whole building would be constructed because it is a living monument.
i think what they're going to do is restore it to the building we knew of last year, bring it back to what it looked like before the fire, which is what people most remember. >> and certainly there is technology now in building materials that exist, even if there's questions about should it have a wood roof. there's obviously wood that can be used that's more resistant to fire than in the past. >> right. i don't know what material they'll ultimately choose. the odds are it won't be the same kind of wood. it will be more fire resistant if they use wood at all. they're going study that very carefully. they're going to use this opportunity to restore it to how it looked before. but it's going to be a stronger building than it was. >> it also has really -- you know, france has been going through a very tough time. there's been demonstrations in the streets rioting. this has really brought people together. i don't know how long will it will last, but it is an extraordinary thing to witness. >> and it isn't just paris. the whole world has come together. i think there is two stories. there's the loss of the building where the damage to the building and the way the world stepped up to support this and this has to be ultimately being heartening for paris and for all who love
this sort of cultural monument. i think that story would be a good one in the long-term. >> dan wise, appreciate it. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> that's it for us. i want to hand it over to chris. "cuomo prime time" starts right now. >> thank you. welcome to "cuomo prime time." we have new information and stories to tell about what happened to our lady of paris. the headline is, the french president thinks the cathedral can be rebuilt in five years. really? also what a story. a hero chaplin braved the inferno to save the religious treasures inside. wait until you hear this incredible story. tonight we also know more about what did and did not survive the flames and what did survive largely in part because of the chaplain and the chain they put together. i'll tell you more of that story. but there are also nagging questions. why did it take so long to report the fire? what does that tell us about what has to be done better in the future? and guess who we have? his eminence timothy dolan here
IN COLLECTIONSCNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on