Return to Transcripts main page


Sources: WH Planning Additional Sanctions On Iran; Trump On Iran: "Nothing Off The Table"; Trump On Phone Calls With World Leaders: "We Have To Be Tough"; White House: New Israel Settlements "May Not Be Helpful"; Trump: NAFTA A "Catastrophe" For Our Jobs, Companies; Trump: NAFTA A "Catastrophe," Need To Speed Up Talks; Aired 7-8p ET

Aired February 2, 2017 - 19:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: -- it for me. Thanks for watching. Erin Burnett OutFront starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT HOST: OutFront next, the breaking news. President Trump escalating the fight with Iran, vowing nothing is off the table, including military action.

Plus more breaking news. New details on the deadly raid that killed a navy SEAL and innocent civilians. Was it approved by President Obama or President Trump? Tonight, the Obama administration fighting back. And violent protest over Breitbart Editor's Plan Speech on Berkeleys Campus. Is the birthplace of free speech now trying to crush it? Let's go OutFront.

Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OutFront tonight, the breaking news. Trump versus Iran. Sources telling CNN at this hour that the White House is planning additional sanctions on Iran, punishing the country for firing a ballistic missile. It's President Trump's latest move in the escalating war of words between the U.S. and Iran. Now, when asked about the possibility of military action against Iran, the president at a meeting with Harley Davidson executives today gave a short and to-the-point answer.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Honestly, nothing is off the table.


BURNETT: Blunt. The Trump administration fired the first shot, threatening Iran yesterday. Trump doubling down earlier today on Twitter, warning that Iran has been formally put on notice for firing a ballistic missile should have been thankful for the terrible deal the U.S. made with them. Iran responding to all of this today, vowing not to bow to U.S. threats. A senior government official blasting what he called Trump's "baseless ranting" charging the Trump lacked experience and should take a lesson from his predecessor Barack Obama. Michelle Kosinski begins our coverage OutFront at the state department. And Michelle, the White House and Iran now in an escalating confrontation. MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN SENIOR DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It does seem to be escalating. It's hard to say that the U.S. though is escalating this. I mean, it was Iran that fired off yet another ballistic missile. It's done several over the last couple of years. And in fact, that's why there was opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. You would think that after it got some of the things that it wants, that there would be this equilibrium for a while, but Iran just keeps doing plenty of other bad stuff. What's different here is that this administration now seems to not be backing away from tough talk.

It seems to be willing to act quickly. And you're talking about penalties for something like a ballistic missile launch, sanctions or an obvious choice. The Obama administration did the same thing after another launch just last year. Iran, of course, doesn't want additional sanctions. And this is separate from the Iran nuclear deal. The two issues are intentionally kept separate but this is not to say that Iran won't react to additional sanctions with more provocation.

There are, of course welcome conservatives within Iran that would love to see the Iran nuclear deal fall apart over this. But analysts say, you know, this is a testing period. Both sides are kind of tweaking each other to see how far it will go. We don't know how far this will go really. And it's possible that additional sanctions for the Trump administration will just be a first step in penalties. They keep saying things like, nothing is off the table. So the rhetoric keeps heating up as well, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Michelle, thank you very much. And the escalation that Michelle is referring to with Iran isn't the only controversy Trump is facing on the global stage tonight. Jim Acosta is OutFront at the White House.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Trump is doing some cleanup down under, offering his praise for, of all places, Australia, following the disclosure of a tense phone call he had with that country's leader, Malcolm Turnbull.

TRUMP: We have one instance in Australia; I have a lot of respect for Australia. I love Australia as a country.

ACOSTA: At issue, the president says is a deal cut by the Obama administration, taking political refugees currently held in detention centers off Australia, who fled from some of the predominantly Muslim nations now barred from sending people to the U.S. under the Trump administration's new travel ban. Refugees the president incorrectly calls illegal immigrants.

TRUMP: We had a problem where, for whatever reason, President Obama said that they were going to take probably well over a thousand illegal immigrants who were in prisons and they were going to bring them and take them into this country. And I just said, why?

ACOSTA: But sources tell CNN the president was so upset with the prime minister, that he abruptly ended their call. And sources say the president had another testy phone conversation with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto which he offered to send U.S. troops to Mexico to help go after, "Tough Hombres south of the board." A source familiar with the conversation told CNN the president's harsh language made the faces of White House staffers turn white. Not to worry, says the president.

TRUMP: Believe me, when you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it. They're tough. We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. We're taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore.

ACOSTA: Still top republicans were spending the day reassuring a key U.S. ally.

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: I don't think Australia should be worried about its relationship with our new president or with our country for that matter.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R) ARIZONA: This, in my view, was an unnecessary and frankly harmful open dispute over an issue which is not nearly important as United States/Australian cooperation and working together.

ACOSTA: Those worries come as the president said he is weighing his options on how to deal with provocations from Iran.

TRUMP: Nothing is off the table. I don't even know if you're a democrat or if you're a republican, but I'm appointing you for another year.

ACOSTA: The president also took his shoot from the lip styles to the National Prayer Breakfast, a typically more solemn affair where he mocked actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

TRUMP: Am I right or am I wrong?

ACOSTA: Replacement on Mr. Trump's old T.V show, The Apprentice.

TRUMP: The ratings went right down the tubes. It's been a total disaster. And I want to just pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings, OK?

ACOSTA: Drawing this rebuttal from Schwarzenegger.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, AUSTRIAN-AMERICAN ACTOR: Why don't we switch jobs? You take over T.V because you're such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job, and then people can finally speak comfortably again.

ACOSTA: Now, so the president says the Australian Ambassador to the United States paid a visit to the White House today. White House officials say Ambassador Joe Hockey met with Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon who conveyed the president's admiration for the Australian people according to the White House. That's the kind of clean up, Erin that you would expect when some diplomatic feathers are ruffled as they are with Australian. Erin?

BURNETT: Yes, all right. Thank you very much, Jim Acosta. And OutFront now, the republican senator, James Langsford. He sits on both the Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees. And thank you for being with me tonight. Obviously so much now as it is every night at this time to talk about. The president, you just heard him say, nothing's off the table, clearly those are his words in regard to Iran, including military action. Do you support that?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD, (R) INTELLIGENCE AND HOMDLAND SECURITY COMMMITTEE: No. I support trying to fix what we're dealing with Iran right now. We tried to do additional sanctions last year when they did ballistic missile tests and continued having that same behavior before. That was blocked before. It did not move through and finish the legislation. I think that is a natural response. I know that the president last year made statements that the ballistic missile tests are separate in negotiation and agreement from the nuclear tests, but clearly, Iran is trying to test missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. That's in violation of all of our agreements. We should have some sort of response.

BURNETT: Right. So he has said he wants to go ahead with sanctions, you're right. Obviously making a distinction between the U.N. deal and the United States deal. But he said he's going to have sanctions. So you support those. But are you saying then that you think saying everything is on the table is going too far? You don't even want the hint of military action?

LANKFORD: No, I think, at this point, it's pretty obvious that he's talking about sanctions and other things. I'm not going to try to read into his statement something that he didn't actually say. The key issue is, Iran is continuing to be a bad actor. They're pushing the coup in Yemen currently right now, they're trying to work towards the overthrow of the government in Bahrain. They're doing a major part of what's happening in Syria, right to expand their influence all the way from Lebanon, all the way no Yemen.

They are a bad actor that's destabilizing the region. And while they're test firing ballistic missiles in violation of all the things the U.N. Security Council has said, that demands a response for the peace of the entire region.

BURNETT: All right. Of course, we'll see whether these sanctions are enough to do it. Obviously, much more limited relative to the ones that were in place before the deal. You have been a strong -- you've known about these harsh words that the president says said in regards to these calls with other foreign leaders in recent days. We have been talking about Jim Acosta, what happened with the Australian Prime Minister. And I want to play for you how Trump himself talked about his calls with world leaders.


TRUMP: When you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it. They're tough. We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Are you concerned about anything that Trump said? You know, abruptly ending a phone call, bad hombres with the president of Mexico?

LANKFORD: No. Obviously, you and I, neither one of us were on the phone calls. We're all getting second hand what those actual phone calls were. It is his negotiating style. We've seen that already, that he's a blunt individual. And that when he speaks about an issue, he speaks about an issue. I understand that's a different kind of diplomacy, but he's used to making deals and engaging with people around the world and negotiating. And so, at this point, none of that concerns me, if a phone call ended abruptly and he hung up but then obviously, they made sure that -- everyone makes sure that we're not trying to challenge our relationship with Australia.

Australia and the United States have had a fantastic relationship. Every single war that the United States has been in, every time we've gone to military action in the last century, Australians have fought with us side by side. We have a very close relationship with Australia. That's not going to be challenged with one tense phone call.

BURNETT: OK. So tonight the White House has come out and done something actually almost identical to what Barack Obama did when he was president. And that is talking about Israeli settlements. The statement out of Trump's White House, while we don't believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements, beyond their current borders, may not be helpful in achieving that goal.

The Obama administration's language on settlement expansion was unhelpful. I think it's safe to say, not be helpful and unhelpful are the exact same thing. So are you happy with that? That the Trump Administration, Obama Administration are now saying the same thing about Israeli settlements?

LANKFORD: Yes. , I think this is an on-going conversation, just for the United States, period and Israel, regardless to the president. You can go back to the language from the Bush administration, probably both the bush administrations and the Clinton administration. It's been a fairly clear conversation that the United States knows our closest ally in the region is Israel. We don't want Israel to engage in something that's going to be a detriment to peace. But at the end of the day, Israel and the Palestinians have to be able to come to the table to be able to resolve it. The Americans can't impose peace, we can't give instructions to Israelis about how they build, to force that, the two of them have to be able --

BURNETT: But you're glad that the White House is saying that settlement expansion is not good? I mean, that was a surprise. A lot of people thought -- Trump has been very encouraging of settlement expansion. That is a change.

LANKFORD: Yes. It's dealing with the borders. Obviously, Israel needs to be able to build within their own borders. They need housing like everybody else does. Occasionally, settlements are called settlements, but they're actually just apartment complexes going up within Israeli land.


LANKFORD: And so when you look at the borders, we have to be able to resolve that as well.

BURNETT: Right, over the line, but obviously right in the center of Jerusalem. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate your time. And I want to bring in our special correspondent, Jamie Gangel. You know, interesting when Senator Lankford has to come on and talk about all these changes. And look, he's trying to say, it's fine. I'm OK with it. But this is a president which is -- president radically sort of changing what he's saying day by day.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Let's put it this way. There's a new sheriff in town. Everyone's being kept on their toes, even the republican senators. But here's the thing. There is an argument to be made for keeping people off balance. The question is, is there a strategy behind being unpredictable? Is there a strategy behind a tense phone call with Australia or blindsiding Israel?

BURNETT: And to calls like that. He's saying, this is a different diplomacy, right? Not the way it's normally begun. OK. That's for sure. But can you have calls like that, slam on the ambassador the next day and then the relationship is the back to normal? Nothing to worry about?

GANGEL: Well, I think what we're hearing from Europeans, from everyone is they don't feel it's normal. They do understand that Donald Trump is going to do things differently, but they're having to figure out how to deal with this. This is a real case of whiplash for them. They don't know what to expect.

BURNETT: All right. Jamie, thank you very much. They clearly don't know what to expect, it changes every day. That is part of the strategy.

OutFront next, Trump says that NAFTA is a catastrophe, but is it, really?

Plus, violent protests at Berkeley over a Breitbart Editor speaking there. President Trump now threatening to cut off federal funds.

And finally, the answer to one of the president's best-kept secrets. What is the amazing and secret ingredient behind that head of hair?


BURNETT: Breaking news. NAFTA may be no more. The Mexican government quietly taking the formal first step in renegotiating the trade deal. This as President Trump is upping the ante, insisting that NAFTA must be scrapped to create jobs in America. TRUMP: NAFTA has been a catastrophe for our country, it's been a catastrophe for our workers, for our jobs, for our companies. I don't care if it's a renovation of NAFTA or a brand-new NAFTA, but we do have to make it fair. And it's very unfair to the American worker.

BURNETT: OutFront now, Robert Reich, former U.S. Labor Secretary under President Clinton, Stephen Moore, the former Economic Adviser to Donald Trump's campaign. Also, our new senior economics analyst, we're thrilled to have you, Steven, welcome. And I am so glad to have both of you reunited in a discussion here on our show. Robert, you heard the president, NAFTA, a catastrophe. What do you say?

ROBERT REICH, PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY: Wrong. NAFTA could be improved, slightly, Erin, there's no question about it. I think the labor and environmental standards in NAFTA could be strengthened and made more enforceable, but NAFTA is not going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Most of the reason that you don't have manufacturing jobs in the United States has to do with technology. Look inside a manufacturing plant and there are some in the United States, and you'll find that those assembly lines with a lot of workers don't exist any longer. You have robots and numerically-controlled machine tools. And you got all kinds of technology. And it's absurd to think that somehow NAFTA is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States.

BURNETT: Steve, do you think it's absurd? Because, to bolster Robert's point, the United States has lost five million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000. People who like NAFTA and people who hate NAFTA agree that the NAFTA blame of that is between 100,000 and 700,000. That means almost all of it is other things, technology and other things, not NAFTA.

STEPEHN MOORE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ECONOMIC ADVISER: Erin, great to be with you and great to be with CNN. Look, I think there's something wrong here because I agreed with almost everything Robert Reich just said. Not everything, but a lot of it. I -- look, if you go back to the history of this, this was actually Ronald Reagan's vision in the 1980s, to have a free trade zone in North America, and that of course it was consummated under a democrat, Bill Clinton. I think it was one of the great bipartisan accomplishments that we've had over the last 25 to 30 years.

Now, look, I think Trump has a point about the fact that it's now, you know, 20 years old, and there are parts of it that probably do need to be renegotiated and modernized. And the other thing I would say, Erin, having traveled with Donald Trump to a lot of those Midwestern states, you know, the Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, those are states where, you know, a lot of the workers agree with Donald Trump, that they feel like their jobs have been -- have been taken by NAFTA.

It's one of the reasons I would say that Donald Trump won the election. So clearly, there's a political problem with NAFTA. Hopefully, we can -- we can renegotiate this in ways that helps, you know, the counted the U.S. and Mexico.

REICH: Erin, may I -- may I ask Steve Moore a question?


REICH: Is that OK?

MOORE: I'm cringing.

REICH: Steve, because you said you agree with me. And therefore, you agree that it --

MOORE: Mostly.

REICH: -- that NAFTA is not a catastrophe. And now, I -- you've never agreed with me, before, ever. And I'm interested in one aspect of this. And that is, you were or have been a major economic adviser to Donald Trump.

MOORE: Right.

REICH: He says that NAFTA is a disaster. He was saying that throughout the campaign. Where is he getting his economic advice and why were you telling him that he's crazy?

MOORE: Well, you know, it's a funny thing. You know, when I first started working with Donald Trump, with my fold buddy, Larry Kudlow, one of the first things we said to him is, you know, Donald, we don't agree with you on free trade. And he used to say to us, look, I'm not -- I'm not against free trade, I just want fair trade and I do -- he said, I'm not a protectionist, and so -- look, but there are some voices in this new administration, Erin, that are more trade protectionist than the kind of conventional republican view.

And there's going to be a tension not just between parties, but within the Republican Party about the position on trade. Now, Bob, I do agree with Donald Trump when it comes to China. I do think that China is stealing and cheating, and I think we do need to get tougher. I haven't talked to you about this, with uh but I think we've got to get tougher with China. I don't think they're playing by the rules. I think they're stealing our technology, but when it comes to NAFTA, I think it's been a vision that worked pretty well but there have been victim.


BURNETT: Let me just ask you a question about NAFTA, Robert. Because on this point, okay? The chief of Patrone Tequila was on the show the other day, right? He didn't like Donald Trump's idea about a 20 percent tariff, but he said this and I thought this is really interesting, he can ship into Mexico, no tariff under NAFTA but when he's shipping from Mexico, it's totally different. Here's what John Paul Dejoria said.


JOHN PAUL DEJORIA, CO-FOUNDER, PAUL AND MITCHELL HAIR PRODUCTS: I know when I ship into Mexico for Paul Mitchell Hair Care Products, we have a duty of 16 percent. So we have to charge a little bit more money to the Mexican people. They pay it because of the quality of the product.


BURNETT: So what he's trying to say there is that he gets 16 percent -- Mexico is able to charge 16 percent to pick that up but the U.S., zero. Doesn't that need to change, Robert?

REICH: Well, it may, I mean, there are very different product categories with regard to NAFTA. I think the goal ought to be to get it down and make it equal. But why would you ever want to impose a tariff on Mexican goods coming to the United States that American consumers will have to end up paying? I mean, that's what's so crazy about the wall idea, that somehow you get Mexicans -- you know, Mexican doesn't pay. American consumers pay.

And let me just say one more thing. Wait a minute, Steve. Just one more thing. And that is, Donald Trump's view of the globe, whether we're talking about NAFTA or trade, generally, or we're talking about politics, is everything's a zero sum game. That is, we win, only to the extent that they lose. Or they lose only to the extent we lose. Actually, it's not a zero sum game. If do it right, it's a win-win. If Mexico is more prosperous, we benefit.


MOORE: Of course, of course, no question about that. But here's the point and here is where I think Donald Trump does have a point when it comes to not just trade with Mexico, but a lot of these counties, Erin. You know, we have free trade deals where we say, we're not going to impose tariffs on one another, but when we -- when America produce or sell things, Erin, to Mexico, guess -- the first thing that happens when those goods get to the border, they slap our goods with a 15 to 16 percent value-added tax, which is like a tariff.

And so Bob, what I think we ought to do is maybe change the way we tax, not tariffs, but, you know, some kind of border adjustable tax system, so we're not -- you know, they charge us 16 percent on our goods, but we let their stuff in at no tax. Maybe that needs to be changed.

REICH: So you would like American consumers to pay more?

BURNETT: Is that the whole point about becoming more fair, Robert? more fair?

MOORE: Well, I don't want to pay more for that corona beer. But I do think there has to be a parody here, and we are -- Bob, I mean, look, you're always the one talking about American workers and our manufacturing workers. We're putting our manufacturing workers at a 15 or 16 percentage point disadvantage when it comes to --

REICH: But we just went through this. I mean, manufacture -- NAFTA is not responsible for loss of manufacturing jobs. Don't buy into that. I mean, we want -- North America -- MOORE: No, no, no, I'm not -- I'm not --

REICH: -- we have a -- wait a minute, this -- let me just finish this. We have a huge stake in the prosperity of Mexico. It is our neighbor, Mexico, the more prosperous Mexico is, the fewer people are going to be desperate enough to come across border and take jobs that -- illegally. And so, we want Mexico to be well off, we want obviously American workers and American consumers to be well off.

MOORE: I agree. But Bob --

REICH: And so why all of this -- the building of the Wall, Steve, what a stupid idea that is.

MOORE: Well, because the American people I think are -- I'm very pro- immigration, you are, but we've got to get illegal immigration under control. And that's an issue the vast majority -- and the wall is not meant to keep out, you know, Mexican products, it's not to keep out but illegal immigration.

REICH: We have more undocumented workers in the United States going back home for years now. I mean, the actual rate and level of undocumented workers in the United States keeps on going down. And that's why this is so insane.


MOORE: But neither party, Bob, for 20 years has done anything about illegal immigration. That's why the wall is important.

BURNETT: There is a point though. Robert just raises an accurate point, right. Right now there are more people originally from Mexico going home than there are people, illegals crossing going north.

MOORE: I don't think that's true today.

BURNETT: That's according to Pew, which we all know that Donald Trump likes to cite.

MOORE: Yes. But those are -- but those are statistics that are a little bit old. As the U.S. economy has done better, you got more people coming over the border. Look, I want them to come legally.

BURNETT: But do you really think a wall is going to work? I mean, really, a wall? I mean -- because -- I'm just saying we sent Eddie Lavendera to the border, Steve, he found stacks of ladders, he found a bunch of tunnels that were 70 feet under the ground. I mean, a wall isn't going to stop any of that, it's just going to cost money, right?

MOORE: No. I think if you have a wall and you have security at the border and then you have internal enforcement, I think there's no reason that we can't significantly reduce illegal immigration. And I'll tell guys both of this, until we get illegal immigration under control in this country, I think, you know, the political consensus for real legal immigration reform and getting the immigrants into this country we need is never going to happen. We've got to get the border secure and the American people spoke pretty loud and clear on that, Bob. They want the border secure.

REICH: Here's what worries me. Here's what worries me. Steve, you've just said, the American people are loud and clear, they don't like NAFTA. The American people are loud and clear, they want a wall.


REICH: The American people -- wait a minute, let me finish. the American people are loud and clear on these things because they have been misled and lied to by people apparently, in fact, mostly by Donald Trump in saying a wall is going to be terribly important, or NAFTA is taking away your jobs. You know, if the American people hear big lies over and over and over again for two years or more and they elect somebody who is basically built his entire political structure on big lies then it's not surprising that a lot of Americans think the wall is necessary or that NAFTA is the key to getting better jobs.

MOORE: I don't think he's lying to them. I think he's just appealing to a lot of their very valid, financial concerns. I mean, I saw that firsthand, Erin, when I was on the campaign trail with Trump. People are worried about trade, they're worried about illegal immigration, now maybe those are exaggerated --

REICH: Of course, they are.

MOORE: Maybe they're exaggerated, but --

REICH: Wait a minute, Steve, they're not exaggerated. The problem is, American workers have a valid concern about the level of their wages and the lack of security in their jobs. But the kind of solutions Donald Trump is pointing to are scapegoating Mexicans, scapegoating others, foreigners, scapegoating immigrants.

BURNETT: OK. Just final word, Steve?

REICH: They are -- they are really dangerous.

MOORE: That's why we have to cut taxes, cut regulations to get the jobs back in America. OK, we agree, Bob.

BURNETT: I don't know that you would both agree on those solutions, but --

REICH: Not at all. Not at all.

BURNETT: I do know this. I do know this that you will both be back on the show and I appreciate that.

MOORE: OK. Thanks, Erin.

BURNETT: And I appreciate that and our viewers too. And thank you, both.

REICH: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next, violent protesters at Berkeley shut down a speech by a controversial Breitbart Editor. Is the birthplace of the free speech movement in America now against free speech?

And breaking news at this hour, the Obama administration fighting back, saying the Trump White House isn't telling the whole story about the deadly Yemen raid. What happened?


[19:30:52] ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news tonight: a top California official condemning the violent protests at U.C.-Berkeley and the man they were protesting, a controversial editor at Breitbart News. The lieutenant governor of the state tweeting, "Hatred has no home on California's public university campuses in any form, from vitriol to violence". This after protesters smashed windows and set fires last night.

Today, the president tweeted, saying, "If U.C.-Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view, no federal funds?"

Kyung Lah is OUTFRONT.


KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Known as one of America's most liberal campuses, U.C.-Berkeley, a war zone over controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos' appearance here. A mob set fire to campus lights, Milo's name melting. The president Yiannopoulos supports also a target here. Notable, because Yiannopoulos worked for now White House chief strategist Steve Bannon at Breitbart.

Anger unleashed on Trump supporters. This woman pepper-sprayed during a local TV interview.


LAH: She, along with at least five others were injured. This wounded man, who a witness says was wearing a Trump hat, pulled out of the violent crowd by police in riot gear.

Shelly Monroe came to Yiannopoulos speak.

SHELLY MONROE, YIANNOPOULOS SUPPORTER: It's totally disrespectful. We came here to listen.

LAH (voice-over): Really?

MONROE: Embarrassment. U.C.-Berkeley should be embarrassed.

LAH (voice-over): That sentiment echoed by Yiannopoulos.

MILO YIANNOPOULOS, BREITBART EDITOR: This is -- the level of which left's (ph) activism has sunk in panic.

LAH: A provocative far-right speaker. Protesters called the Breitbart editor's nationwide campus talks hate speech, targeting feminists, transgender people, and Muslims.

Police evacuating him from his own speaking event due to the violence.

Yiannopoulos calling the violent protests hypocritical in a YouTube post.

YIANNOPOULOS: They want to allow students to listen to differing points of view, they're absolutely petrified by alternative visions of how the world ought to look. And people with arguments and facts and reason that don't conform to the crazy social justice left's vision of the universe.

LAH: President Trump weighing in with a funding threat. Tweeting, "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence, no federal funds?"

The Berkeley College Republicans who invited Yiannopoulos say they're disgusted, but not surprised by the violence.

JOSE DIAZ, PRESIDENT, U.C. BERKELEY COLLEGE REPUBLICANS: That just underscores what we already know to be. What we know to be here at U.C. Berkeley, and that is a very intolerant, progressive, left-wing culture that is not hospitable to conservative students.

LAH: U.C. Berkeley says of the 1,500 protesters, there was only a small group of non-students, 150 outside agitators who led the violence and says it regrets the violence overshadowed a legitimate and lawful protest by students.

DEMONSTRATORS: No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here.

LAH: We saw it ourselves. Before protesters in black arrived, Cal students were overwhelmingly peaceful. But the violence far spoiled what students wanted.

SHIVAM PATEL, U.C. BERKELEY FRESHMAN: I don't support Trump either, but I think that it allows the people on the right to say, oh, look at all of these Berkeley liberal snowflakes and they're going out -- and they're just as intolerant of speech as we are.

LAH: A microcosm of a divided nation, driven even further apart.

MONRE: That tells me that they're hypocrites. This is being tolerated. This behavior is being tolerated. This is why Trump's the president. 2020 re-election!


LAH: Now, the irony, of course, is that Berkeley is the birthplace of the free speech movement. By not allowing Yiannopoulos to give his speech, he's, in fact, more well known today.

And, Erin, we should add that Trump's tweet regarding funding here at this university, that was wildly read by California lawmakers as a threat and they condemned it -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Kyung.

And OUTFRONT now, senior congressional correspondent for "The Washington Examiner", David Drucker, and editor in chief of "The Daily Beast", John Avlon.

John, look, the video is awful. Protesters lighting fires, bank windows being destroyed, even graffiti that we saw on the video that says "kill Trump" being written.

[19:35:07] Does this hurt the protesters? Basically, Milo Yiannopoulos is more well-known, his point has been made for him by the protesters.

JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, extremists are always their worst enemy ultimately. And here, you know, when the protests turned violent and become turn riots, all they do in this political context is empower the right because it creates a rationale for a message of law and order.

And on the left, it undercuts any claim to represent liberal values. Remember, the core of liberal ideas is "I oppose what you say, but defend by the death your right to say it." That's undercut by this intolerance and violence as well.

BURNETT: And, David, you know, you heard Kyung with the Berkeley College Republican statement, which read in part, "The free message movement is dead." The irony, as Kyung points out, Berkeley being the birthplace of that movement.

There is a wider concern there, that those who preach tolerance can be incredibly intolerant of other's points of view. And we hear this from college campuses across this country, Berkeley, Yale, and everything in between.

DAVID DRUCKER, SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes, and it's been a problem. One of the things we've seen on universities, at least since I was there, just at this point, it's been a while, is that there is not a diversity of thought. And there is not a lot of tolerance for a diversity of thought.

BURNETT: But there never really was. It's only --

DRUCKER: That's not necessarily true. I think if you go back to the free speech movement, the whole point of the argument was to allow different points of view when the people preaching the free speech movement were not in the majority. And I'd say this. Milo is a provocateur, but traditional intellectual conservatives get the same sort of treatment as he does.

AVLON: But Bill Buckley wrote, "God and Man at Yale" in the 1950s. He was doing it because he thought the professors were crazy leftists and he was an outcast. I mean, this is an old complaint. The problem is, is when it transcends into the violence and it feeds into existing narratives.

Provocateurs want to provoke. When they do, when outside agitators come in and make it violent, that, you know, everyone's a victim here, no one's a hero. And the fact that people like playing the victim now is part of the problem.

DRUCKER: But there's also the issue of just whether or not diversity of thought is tolerant. And that's the point I was making.

AVLON: Sure.

DRUCKER: With Milo and Breitbart, they obviously have a reputation that proceeds them and that's what you're going to get.

AVLON: That's one way of saying it.

DRUCKER: But there are plenty of traditional, intellectual conservatives who have been invited by conservative groups to speak on college campuses. You don't see the rioting, but you the same sort of reaction, that they shouldn't be allowed to speak, they try and to shut the speech down, and that's the point I'm trying to make that this is an old story.

BURNETT: Kyung went to Berkeley last August, right, covering the election. She met with the college Republicans there. And they were being taunted and not treated well. And then after she left, they sent her this picture of what happened to their Trump cutout.

AVLON: Yes. That's terrible.

BURNETT: Right, it's not surprising, but I'm just saying, this is obviously the way it is there right now.

AVLON: And look, the key, what we're not doing anymore is applying consistent standards. If you're offended some when the president of your party gets compared to Hitler, you're part of the problem.


AVLON: But we need to make sure that campuses get over this idea of illusions of safe space and intolerance towards differing viewpoints. Campuses, particularly public universities, need to be forums for debate and thought. But that needs to remain civil. Protests are legitimate. Once protests turn violent, we're all off the rails here, people. It's part of intimidation.

BURNETT: But, of course, then the others on the other side, they say, well, look, if your point of view is intolerant, why should I be intolerant of it?

AVLON: Right.

BURNETT: Right? That's what they would say. Those who were not violent, were just standing up --

AVLON: Hate begets hate.

(CROSSTALK) DRUCKER: Look, it's all subjective. But I think that we know the difference. We know that there is a difference between actual racism and the fact that maybe some people think taxes should be lower. I mean, that's --

AVLON: Sure, yeah.

DRUCKER: But I think that's what Erin's talking about here, is that, look, obviously the more politically charged your speech is, the more upset people are going to get. But --

AVLON: Especially if it's designed to insult or provoke. But here's the big picture, guys. There is no right not to be offended. So, don't work under the illusion that life works that way or college campuses.

BURNETT: Right, which is the key point you're both making about safe spaces, right? That is not what the world is about. Thank you.

And next, breaking news about a deadly raid that went horribly wrong. Today, the Obama administration fighting back against the Trump administration on who's to blame.

And Jeanne Moos looks at what may be the world's most famous, what do you mean may be the world's most head of hair? Does anyone have another candidate right now? Am I missing something?

Well, here's what I'm missing, is the secret ingredient. We have finally figured out why it looks like that. We'll be back.


[19:42:27] BURNETT: Breaking news: Obama administration officials pushing back against the Trump White House over the deadly raid in Yemen, in which a U.S. Navy SEAL was killed along with civilians in Yemen. This raid in the works since November, when President Obama was still in office.

We have confirmed that President Trump signed off on the raid, a day after receiving two briefings about it. First by the national security adviser, General Michael Flynn, and then during a ten-person dinner at the White House, which included Secretary Mattis.

Jim Sciutto is OUTFRONT.

And, Jim, what are you hearing from members of the Obama administration now about this raid, they're pushing back?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Erin, I've spoken to members who were involved in national security in the Obama administration, and they say this is simply not true that this raid was okayed, approved by President Obama, before he left office. One, and two, they're saying, it just wouldn't be that far in advance, weeks or months in advance of an operation that has so many moving parts on the ground. That's just not how far in advance operations like this are okayed. We're hearing this, as we're hearing, as well, new information of just

how central President Trump himself was to the decision-making.


SCIUTTO: Tonight, new information that President Trump was actively involved in the decision making on the Yemen raid up until the final hours.

On January 25th, four days before the mission, the president was briefed by national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and then again during a ten-person White House dinner later that evening. The dinner, as Mr. Trump's request, included his three closest aides, chief of staff Reince Priebus, and senior advisers Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He then, on that evening, had a dinner meeting, where the operation was laid out in great extent.

SCIUTTO: Like many high-risk military missions, the planning was months in the making. The initial proposed plans were first sent to the Pentagon on November 7th, during the Obama administration, and one day before the election. Department of Defense lawyers and legal experts then reviewed the details before approving the plan and sending it to the National Security Council on December 19th.

Next, the plan was reviewed by officials from Defense, State, and the National Security Council. But there was one final delay, waiting for a moonless night to help conceal U.S. special operators. That would not come until late in January, after the swearing in of Donald Trump.

The new president gave final approval on January 26th, one day after that White House dinner, three days to mission launch.

[19:45:02] SPICER: This was a very, very well-thought-out and executed effort.

SCIUTTO: The raid targeted a suspected al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula compound in Yemen's al-Bayda province. U.S. Navy SEALs and UAE special operators immediately encountered AQAP fighters as they approached the compound. According to the Pentagon, the fighters, including some females, positioned themselves along rooftops on adjacent buildings, pinning down U.S.-led forces.

Aircraft conducted an air strike, leading to at least 23 civilian deaths, according to an NGO. The al Qaeda fighters used heavy arms, killing Navy SEAL, William "Ryan" Owens. A V-22 Osprey aircraft was badly damaged as it tried to land to rescue the wounded. Special operators then took intelligence materials from the compound, including computer hard drives.

SPICER: When you look at the totality of what was gained to prevent the future loss of life here in America and against our people and our institutions, and probably throughout the world, in terms of what some of these individuals could have done, I think it is a successful operation by all standards.


BURNETT: So, Jim, is this finger-pointing going on right now or is there more to it?

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, what's interesting here, is you have the Trump administration, in effect, seeking Obama administration buy-in to the first major military operation that was ordered under President Trump. I mean, here's one important point. I spoke just now to a former SEAL, who worked in the Yemen fighting space, who said that there and in other places, the military will often have a number of options that it will present to the president for a number of raids.

All of them possibilities, but you have to factor in final decisions, your latest intelligence, the moment before those soldiers, those special operators are launched. At the end of the day, it's the president's decision when that happens. And Trump was president, at the end of the day, it was his final decision to launch this operation.

BURNETT: All right. Jim Sciutto, thank you very much.

OUTFRONT now, the former CIA director under President Bill Clinton and former senior adviser to the Trump campaign, Ambassador James Woolsey.

So, let me just ask you, you know, obviously, this had been in the works for a long time, it had gone through a lot of approvals. But when the final night came when the moon wasn't out, President Trump was the president, he was the one who had to make that final decision, as Jim is saying.

Is the Trump White House trying to shift the blame here?

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I can't tell -- I am struck by the fact it seems to me maybe they have too many pr people in the top levels of the government, because they're jousting with one another. This sounds like it was a carefully planned operation, and it's terrible that they lost one of the SEALs and it's a shame that they had some, as they call it, collateral damage, civilians who were apparently killed in the fighting.

But we're at war with a terrorist movement. And if you're going to take some terrorists out, things like this are going to happen.

BURNETT: So, it had been in the works since the day before the election. That's when the first plans were delivered. There had been a lot of discussion.

But when President Trump was briefed on it twice by his national security adviser and then at that dinner, there were four days between that and the actual raid itself. It was the first moonless night that had come. When President Obama was president, there was no moonless night, right? So, he wasn't able to approve it, even had he wanted to. So, when you put that together, are you concerned at all, had he been

rushing it, he took the first moonless night? I mean, is there anything that would make you concerned there?

WOOLSEY: No, I'm not thoroughly experienced with this. However, I've seen some actions of this general sort. I've -- this sounds to me as if it was well-planned. And I also -- I mean, my overwhelming memory of something like this is the one time in my tenure at the CIA, when someone was killed, implementing a decision. And it's a terrible feeling that you have if you are responsible anywhere up the line in any regard, that someone died for your country, that was under junior command.

BURNETT: It's a horrible tragedy, of course, a SEAL dead, civilians, as well. Obviously, in the fog of war, we don't understand who was fighting, in what way, but there were civilians.

Now, one of the goals was to gain intelligence about al Qaeda.


BURNETT: This is really only the second major raid in Yemen in a few years. So what information could have been this valuable that would have been worth? Because, obviously, they knew they were taking a lot of risks. This was a risky raid no matter what. If they thought something was worth it, what could that be?

WOOLSEY: Like the raid on bin Laden, where they announced kind of unwisely how much material they had obtained and software and notebooks and on and on. I think it would be best if they had not said anything about it. But if they're going to say something, they have given us a general road map to the sort of things that they were able to take.

[19:50:04] And it sounds like they would have been quite easily.

BURNETT: Right, things like hard drives and things like that?

WOOLSEY: Absolutely.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Ambassador. I appreciate your time. Good to see you.

And OUTFRONT next, what is the secret behind Trump's hair? Only Jeanne Moos could tell this story. And you know, his doctor revealed something today, and she's going to tell you what it is.


BURNETT: At the age of 70, President Trump appears to have all of his hair, and tonight, we may know why.

Here's Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now that he's president, no one will dare do what Donald Trump once invited --

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Come on, Barbara, get over here.

MOOS: -- Barbara Walters to do.

TRUMP: Now, you're going to mess it up for this interview.

MOOS: But now we've learned something new about the much-aligned, most famous head of hair on any head of state.

ANNOUNCER: Talk to your doctor about Propecia.

MOOS: Only it was Trump's doctor who talked about Propecia to "The New York Times," something a Trump official said he did not have permission to do.

Remember Dr. Harold Bornstein?

Even his wife once tried to stop him from doing an interview with CNN, but he told "The Times" that President Trump takes a small dose of Propecia, leading "Men's Journal" to ask, should the leader of the free world be taking Propecia?

[19:55:09] It's a drug that reduces hair loss, but it has side effects.

DR. HOWARD SOBEL, DERMATOLOGIST, LENOX HILL HOSPITAL: Anywhere from 2 to 10 percent people will have a problem with libido? What do you do? Keep the hair on your head and you're sexier and you look better, or -- and you don't have a libido?

MOOS: A hair-raising choice.

But could Propecia solve one of the mysteries surrounding Donald Trump?

On Twitter, some seized on this less-common Propecia side effect.

SOBEL: It causes a runny nose.

MOOS: So, does it explain this?

Then-candidate Trump denied he had a cold or allergies.

TRUMP: No sniffles, no.

MOOS: We'll never know if Propecia causes the Donald's sniffling, but at least we do know you can't blame it for Alec Baldwin's sniffs.

President Trump's doctor credits Propecia for maintaining his own shoulder-length hair, what do you want to bet President Trump would like to get the doctor out of his hair?

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

JIMMY FALLON, TV HOST: Yes! Donald Trump, everybody!


BURNETT: And we'll be right back.


BURNETT: And thanks so much, as always, for joining us. Don't forget, you can watch OUTFRONT anytime, anywhere on CNN Go. I'll see you back here tomorrow night. It will be Friday.

"AC360" with Anderson begins right now.