Return to Transcripts main page


Transcripts Reveal Trump's Heated Phone Calls; Trump Lashes Out At Congress Over Russia Sanctions; Tighter Sanctions Also Target North Korea And Iran; North Korea Hit With Tougher U.S. Sanctions; Russian PM: U.S. Sanctions Amount To Trade War; Woman Sentence In Suicide Texting Case; Voters Head To The Polls On Tuesday in Kenya; Transcripts Of Trump's Calls With World Leaders Leaked; NAACP To People Of Color Use Caution In Missouri; WSJ: Mueller Impanels Grand Jury In Russia Probe. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired August 3, 2017 - 15:00   ET





HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Hala Gorani. We are coming to you live from CNN London. Thanks for being with us on

this Thursday. This is THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

Well, tense heated and confrontational at times, you would think those words would describe conversations typically speaking between the American

president and the country's allies, and yet we are getting a dramatic look today at how the self-styled world-class negotiator conducts diplomacy.

The "Washington Post" released transcripts of Donald Trump's first phone calls with Mexico's president as well as Australia's prime minister. The

calls took place days after President Trump took office.

He had some sharp exchanges with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. At one point describing their talk as most unpleasant and telling Mr. Turnbull,

quote, "I have had it." Yet later, Mr. Trump called media reports at the time of the -- and accounts of that phone conversation they call -- he

called them fake news.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We had a call telephone call. You guys exaggerated that call. That was a big

exaggeration. No one said we had a great call.


GORANI: There you have it. That was at the time, however, read the transcripts. They also show Mr. Trump pressured Mexican President Enrique

Pena Nieto over plans for a border wall.

Mr. Trump said, "If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall then I don't want to meet with you guys anymore because I

cannot live with that, but you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that and I cannot live with that."

Excerpts from the transcripts of phone call between President Trump and Pena Nieto of Mexico and Malcolm Turnbull of Australia. We are following

international reaction to this story as well as the fallout from Mr. Trump's signature of the bill slapping new sanctions on Russia, North

Korea, and Iran.

Our team of reporters are standing by, Stephen Collinson is in Washington. Matthew Chance is in Moscow. Nick Paton Walsh is in Tehran. Stephen, I

want to start with in Washington and the transcripts of these phone calls.

And by the way, this confirming earlier reports in January that that phone call with Malcolm Turnbull went very badly.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's right, Hala. And on the first level, of course, that is more evidence that Donald Trump

doesn't necessary tell the truth about what goes on.

Clearly you saw the clip there of him saying that this was fake news that they had a bad call. But what I find really interesting about these calls

is the way that Donald Trump, who was then a new president sees everything through the prism of how it will affect him politically.

He tells Pena Nieto, the president of Mexico that you cannot come out and say Mexico will not pay for the wall because that will make me look

ridiculous considering I've spent two years saying that Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

So, he is not arguing about the principle that Mexico should pay for the wall. He is just saying that if you come out and say you won't that makes

me look politically bad. The same thing is true of this refugee deal with Australia.

There is no sense that Donald Trump believes that the United States owes its word to Australia, which has been a staunch ally for every 20th-century

war the United States or that he owes Australia something as an ally it is OK, I cannot allow these refugees to come in because I am the guy that is

campaigning to keep refugees out.

So, everything is through the prism of how it will affect Donald Trump's personal brand. It is not, you know, a wide sweeping diplomatic vision.

It is a political one.

GORANI: Yes. Let's about the diplomatic fallout from the signature of that bill imposing sanctions on Russia and Iran and North Korea as well.

Let's go live to Moscow. We heard from the president also on Twitter once again Matthew Chance there, essentially blaming Congress for all of that.

Saying that relations with Russia are at historic and dangerous new low, and it was interesting because Dmitry Medvedev, the prime minister of

Russia, yesterday had some very harsh personal words directed at Donald Trump. What has been the reaction to essentially this fallout in Moscow?

[15:05:04] MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's been this absolutely stinging criticism by Dmitri Medvedev, who is

the Russian prime minister and other elements of the Russian government have said this is a dangerous move, the sanctions bill, the sanctions law


That they said it shortsighted and will damage the relationship with Russia, but it's that scathing criticism from Dmitri Medvedev that I think

will sting most when it comes to Donald Trump because basically he said that that the administration of Donald Trump had been demonstrated to be

completely impotent.

He said it was humiliating. He said that the American establishments completely outplayed Trump and put him in his place. I mean, these are all

the kinds of phrases that will almost calibrated by the Russian prime minister to anger the U.S. president.

And I think it demonstrates the extent to which, you know, the Russians, the Kremlin are moving on from this idea that Donald Trump is the man, is

the U.S. president who is going to turn around the very difficult relationship between Moscow and Washington at high hopes that that would be

the case.

But I think the fact that Congress has passed this law, the fact that Donald Trump has been essentially forced to sign it has indicated to them,

was underlined to them that this is not going to happen. Things are not going to change under the Trump administration anytime soon. And that's

deeply disillusioning I think for many, many people in Russia.

GORANI: Interesting to Medvedev directly and personally attacked Donald Trump, weak, humiliated, Donald Trump then blamed Congress for all the

problems. To Iran now in Tehran, Nick Paton Walsh is standing by.

Just like in Russia, the Iranians are saying we reserve the right to react, what do they mean?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: (Inaudible), Hala, takes an economic form given how little trade there is between Iran

and U.S. at present. There may be something more geopolitical perhaps in Iraq and Syria they have in mind, some (inaudible) response at first keep

their cards close to their chest.

The deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, very clear that he considers these new sanctions to be designed to, quote, "destroy" the nuclear

agreement and they have chosen the rights to have some sort of clever response at a time of their choosing.

You listen, Hala, to those transcripts and frankly it sent a slight chill down your spine is to how someone like Donald Trump, (inaudible) more

seasoned negotiators here that would hand Iran's nuclear discussions certainly that particularly was something that took years of (inaudible)

more over negotiations (inaudible) detail.

And now, of course, there will concerns (inaudible) Donald Trump always clear he never (inaudible) first place now talking about maybe in the weeks

or months ahead will certifying Iran is being compliance with it.

That certainly makes senior Iranian officials questioning certain elements of that deal. What these new stations on related to the nuclear agreement,

what do they mean when something (inaudible) in the nuclear agreement saying U.S. will be doing things to harm Iran's economic standings.

So (inaudible) certainly and Tehran is saying themselves of individuals (inaudible) to make up their side of the bargain when it came to nuclear

enrichment questioning quite what the U.S. (inaudible) Trump White House want to keep that sense of spirits of (inaudible) alive -- Hala.

GORANI: All right. Uncertain times we are hearing reaction obviously to the transcript of those phone calls leaked to the "Washington Post," as

well as the fallout of that bill imposing sanctions on Russia, on Iran. Thanks all of you for joining us, but also on North Korea.

Let's cross over to Asia now. Let's get some reaction to the sanctions imposed on North Korea, Alexandra Field is in Seoul -- Alexandra.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The bill signed by U.S. President Donald Trump includes new and expanded sanctions against North

Korea. They largely target financial institutions and other entities that are doing business with the rogue regime.

It's another attempt to cut off the flow of resources that help to fund the illicit activities that are going on inside of North Korea. That is

already one of the most heavily sanctioned places on earth.

North Korea has been subject to six rounds of U.N. sanctions since 2006. There are efforts underway to try and implement another round of U.N.

sanctions against North Korea. That as North Korea successfully launched two ICBM tests just last month.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is getting ready to travel to the region later this week. The topic of the growing crisis on the Korean

Peninsula will, of course, be front and center for Tillerson as he meets with his counterparts in the region, the subject of discussion how to

achieve denuclearization.

Certainly, nobody believes that sanctions alone will do it. They failed to do it so far, but in recent days, Secretary Tillerson has been talking

about possibility of talks with North Korea, engagement with North Korea.

That, of course, with a big pre-condition, denuclerization, according to the secretary of state who says that North Korea would first have to agree

to abandon its nuclear missile program. In Seoul, Alexandra Field, CNN.

[15:10:13] GORANI: So you got reaction there from the key countries. Let's get back to those explosive phone call transcripts we've been talking

about, CNN global affairs analyst, Kimberly Dozier, joins me now live from Washington.

So first of all, to make it clear to our viewers, When the president said that it was fake news, that his conversation with Malcolm Turnbull had not

gone very well. Obviously, it is now confirmed based on these leaks that it was really pretty much a disaster, diplomatic disaster.

Saying it was unpleasant call and telling him that he wouldn't honor a pledge to take in refugees that was made during the Obama administration,

but potentially what kind of fall out can we see from that and the transcript from the phone call with the Mexican president?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, think about at the time, both the Australians and the Mexicans, they knew what had taken place

in the phone call so they knew that Donald Trump was lying to the public, lying to his own staff when saying that this was fake news.

Now the rest of the world gets to catch up, if these transcripts are accurate and so far, the White House does not seem to have challenged them,

then we all know that what he says in public for public consumption is crafted to get the response he is looking for as opposed to having some

allegiance to the truth.

And we are seen this time and time again from learning that Donald Trump is actually the one who contributed to and altered the account of what his

son, Don Jr. said about what happened in a meeting with Russians. This happens time and time again.

So, the message to both allies and to the U.S.' detractors is that you cannot necessarily trust what he says and that undermines the strength of

the White House and the believability of statements of either support or criticism.

GORANI: Kimberly, it is so easy to disprove it. I mean, for instance saying that the president of Mexico and the president of the United States

talked and Donald Trump says, he told me that, you know, everything was going well with the wall and congratulated me on how it was, you know, the

project was going forward, for instance that.

And then the president of Mexico says that never happened. We haven't even spoken since Hamburg, at the beginning of July? So, why say it in the

first placed when it's so easy to disprove it?

DOZIER: Some of the folks close to Donald Trump say that in his life, in his business life, he has gotten accustomed to being surrounded by people

who do not challenge his point of view or his narrative, and this maybe we are getting an insight into how he remembers the conversation going, what

he took away from it.

So, it is also an insight into how this White House works that there do not seemed to be too many people who can challenge him and say, sir, you cannot

say that, please do not tweet that.

Some are hoping that the new Chief of Staff John Kelly will fill in that role, but it is not clear yet.

GORANI: And now the fallout from that sanctions bill because this is obviously -- the transcripts of the phone call give us an insight to

conversations that happened several months ago that did not lead to big diplomatic rouse.

In the case of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev personal attacks directed at Donald Trump that were quite remarkable. One of the things that he tweeted and

was posted on a Facebook page as well.

"The Trump administration demonstrated complete impotence in the most humiliating manner, transferring executive powers to Congress." But what

was interesting was how Donald Trump responded by blaming Congress for not being able to get his agenda through.

DOZIER: That has been the Trump play from the beginning of this objecting to Congress' check on his powers to make foreign policy and as some senior

congressional aides have said to me, he just does not seem to understand that that is the way to constitutional framers set things up so that there

would be a check and balance, the three equal houses.

And what is happening now with Russia is Trump is trying to deflect the fact that he cannot warm relations with Russia and now it is going to be

harder and harder for him to give any sweeteners such as a lifting of sanctions for any progress on things like cooperation on counterterrorism

in Syria and without it going to a 30-day congressional review.

What that does is take some of these negotiations from behind closed doors and expose them and give Congress the right to vote in on it, so there will

not be any sort of backroom deals. That is what Trump objects to.

And I think from Moscow's point of view, they realized, well, if we are not going to be able to get the better relationship we'd hope for, then we will

go back with the plan that we originally intended to use against a possible Hillary Clinton administration.

[15:15:08] Attack on all sides, point out whenever they cannot follow through with something undermine the White House.

GORANI: All right. And we will see as well how Iran reacts. Kimberly Dozier, thanks very much for joining us. Appreciate it.

A lot more to come this evening, we'll have more on Donald Trump and those transcripts a little bit later in the program. But next, this remarkable

story, she encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself by a text message. The latest on a case that could be a legal game changer in the United States.

And a murder that has horrified Kenya and is raising urgent questions about its upcoming election. A pathologist reveals just how a top election

official was killed. We'll be right back.


GORANI: Breaking news in the United State in a case that could set a stunning legal precedent in that country and maybe inspire justice systems

elsewhere, who knows? In the past few minutes, this woman had been sentenced to two half years in prison with 15 months of that hard time.

Her crime, Michelle Carter, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after sending text messages that encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself

three years ago. Now, she was a minor at the time, 17. Her boyfriend committed suicide by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck.

Now let's get more on the implications of this case, let's bring in CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan, who is in New York. And it's often that the

case in situations like this that people have very passionate opinions about whether or not the verdict and the sentencing are fair.

If a 17-year-old girl does something stupid and cruel like encourage someone to kill himself over text, should she do hard prison time? Are you

surprised by that sentence?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Actually, you know, I have spoken to so many people about this in the recent past, and it is amazing, Hala, the

variety of opinions people have. A lot of people think she deserved 20 years in prison, someone described this to me as an act of complete and

consummate evil.

Because this young man -- the young man who died had actually gotten out of the vehicle in which he was trying to kill himself and she talked him into

going back into complete the suicide.

Others say she was an emotionally troubled, mentally disturbed teenager herself and that she needs psychiatric help, but not jail. I was not

surprised by the sentence. I thought that there would be a jail sentence.

I frankly this judge was so tough I thought it might even be higher than 2- 1/2 years. She could have faced 20 years. So -- but I think people were stunned in that courtroom in Massachusetts.

GORANI: But what kind of precedent does this set? Because I mean, people could be arguing over text message that someone could send a text to

someone else to say I hope you kill yourself, you know, sometimes people will say.

[15:20:12] It's terrible. It's cruel. It's inappropriate, but then if the person goes ahead and does something in self-harm. That person then going

to be tried, convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to jail?

CALLAN: Well, you raise a concern that a lot of people have and in terms of precedent in the law, believe it or not, the judge had to reach back and

find a case that was 200 years old when somebody in, I guess, Massachusetts encourage somebody else to kill herself -- to hang herself and she did 200

years ago.

So that just shows you how the law really has never seen anything like this in recent times and I think the judge here focused on the fact though, that

this was not just one brief exchange of threats or even encouragement to commit suicide.

There had been a long pattern of her texting this young man, encouraging him to kill himself, helping him plan the suicide, and then on the very day

when he was about to commit the act, she actually talked him into getting into the vehicle.

So, he viewed this as an exceptional case that actually made out of manslaughter under law and it is not just you know a quick exchange of

crazy thoughts that we often say --

GORANI: So then why is it involuntary manslaughter if it was thought out, planned, premeditated? Why was that (inaudible), you know?

CALLAN: Well, you know, he was the one who found her guilty. Remember that she did not have -- this was not a jury trial because she is a

juvenile, he found her guilty and this was a lower charge so he cut her a break by finding her guilty on a lower charge.

By the way, the definition of involuntary manslaughter means engaging in wanton, reckless conduct that causes the death of another, so it does

arguably fit that definition. Telling somebody to get into a carbon monoxide filled truck knowing that he would die could certainly be defined

as willful, wanton conduct, and that is what the statute defines --

GORANI: This woman is now 19. She was 17 when it happened and she was tried in juvenile court, right? That must make a big difference because if

she had been an adult at the time of this crime, she could have gotten lot more time in jail, presumably.

CALLAN: She could have gotten a heavier sentence and -- but I think in the end, this case is going to go up on appeal and the Massachusetts Appellate

Court may very well throw the conviction out. It is the first time that this kind of sentence and conviction has occurred in the context of social

media and texting. It's such an odd case that many lawyers in Massachusetts think the appellate court will reverse the lower court judge

and release her.

GORANI: Right. And now with social media and all these methods of communication, there are so many more ways for this to pop. Thanks very

much, Paul Callan there for your analysis there on this story, a young woman now 19, 17 at the time sentenced to two and half years, 15 months

behind bars for sending text messages encouraging her boyfriend to commit suicide.

Now turning our attention to Kenya and (inaudible) international says the murder of a Kenyan election official just days before the ballot should be

a red flag to the country's leaders.

Chris (inaudible) who was in charge of computerized voting was strangled incision marks on his arm. The colleague says he was tortured, but the

government's top pathologist could not confirm that to CNN.

Some are now asking if Kenya can deliver a credible election at all? People head to the polls on Tuesday and the contest could be one of the

tightest in memory. Farai Sevenzo has this report from Nairobi.


FARAI SEVENZO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Nairobi's (inaudible), one of Africa's largest, mother of five, Evelyn, is making (inaudible) to

sell. Here in Kenya, this (inaudible) great dish is popular with everyone.

But when it comes to politics, Kenya taste are far more varied. Eight candidates are running for president, but polls show the real race is

between two longtime rivals whose own fathers led Kenya into independence nearly 55 years ago as president and vice president.

It is the name of the incumbent, Uhuru Kenyatta, which means largest on this particular street. The 55-year-old Kenyatta has served one term as

president and is going for a second.

The 72-year-old Raila Odinga has failed three times at the polls and is going for the presidency for a fourth time. The race is tight enough for

him to hope that this time the outcome will be different.

SEVENZO (on camera): This has been a fiercely contested election. These two men are fighting for a share of 19.6 million votes and no matter where

you go in Kenya, people want to know, will this be a free and fair election and will it be peaceful?

[15:25:05] And the question of the hour is, of course, who will it be?

(voice-over): Evidence tells us that the two men candidates are ready to win and this worries her because she says, neither of them is ready to

lose. Even though Kenya's last election in 2013 was peaceful, she says the violence that followed the disputed polls in 2007 when over 1,000 people

were killed still scares here. But she is determined to vote for the opposition, Raila Odinga.

EVELYN ACHOLA, VOTING IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS: Let's give (inaudible) another chance. We can't continue with somebody who is the making our life

miserable and continue with him again and again and again.

SEVENZO: The word peace is on everyone's mind. Go into the center of Nairobi and you will hear it again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) to have a peaceful election then at the end of the day, whoever wins it will (inaudible).

SEVENZO: Make no mistake this is a wealthy nation, popular with tourists, but Kenyans are worried about the cost of living and how this incredible

wealth does not tend to trickle down to everyone.

President Kenyatta is promising to create more jobs and to keep Kenyans safe from terrorism. Odinga is promising to support the poor and to end

the corruption that many acknowledged has blighted development here when two pool elephants clashed they say in these parts.

It is the grass that suffers. Kenyans are hoping there will be no suffering and that their country will roll out an election without incident

come the 8th of August. Farai Sevenzo, CNN, Nairobi.


GORANI: A really interesting story there. Now we talked about this yesterday football's most expensive transfer, it took an even more dramatic

twist today. Neymar's moved from Barcelona to Paris Saint Germaine is a step closer to becoming reality, but in circumstances that are pretty mind


Just hours ago, Spain's top football league, which Barcelona is part of try to block the transfer. The league has said it was refusing to accept the

world record $263 million fee offered by PSG.

But a short time ago, Barcelona confirmed that Neymar's lawyers went in person to the club and pay the $263 million amount in full. There you have


Coming up, more stunning new details from the leaked transcripts of President Trump's phone calls and a debate with two guests who strongly

disagree on how Mr. Trump is managing an office.

Plus, an ominous warning from a civil rights group in the U.S. urging extreme caution for minorities in a specific Midwestern states. Stay with



[15:30:09] HALA GORANI, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get back to those leaked transcript to phone calls between President Trump and world leaders. And

they've revealed some astonishing details, including a very tasty exchange with the Australian Prime Ministry Malcolm Turnbull. And this happened in


Their conversation turns sour when President Trump refused to honor an agreement to take in about 1,250 refugees. He said 2, 000 the president

but it's actually lower number than that. He said quote, this is going to kill me. I'm the world's greatest person that does not want to let people

into the country. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant. This is ridiculous.

Finally, Trump says, I've had it, and then abruptly ended the call.

So, what should we make of this new inside into Mr. Trump style of diplomacy? Let's bring in two people who are likely to have different

views. Brian Klaas from the London School of Economics is with me here in the studio. Stephen Moore, a former adviser to Donald Trump joins me from


Stephen, what did you make of those calls? First of all, it proves that unlike what Mr. Trump said that the fake news media had misrepresented his

call with Prime Minister Turnbull. It was indeed a very, you know, a diplomatic disaster on that phone call. So, that account in January was

correct Stephen.

STEPHEN MOORE, CNN SENIOR ECONOMICS ANALYST: Well, look, Donald Trump is a new kind of leader that we haven't seen in America for a long, long time.

He doesn't play by the conventional rules. He is sometimes flamboyant. He speaks what's on his mind.

You know, this comes as backdrop of this, Hala, as you know President Trump came out with the new immigration proposal yesterday that would deal with

the immigration and refugees. He wants to pull back. I agree with some of what he wants to do and not some of the other aspects of this.

But, you know, Trump, I'll just make one other point. You know, when it comes to this immigration refugee issue that was the subject to that

conversation. You know, this was a big issue on the campaign and Trump really help to carry that idea of law and order at the borders to victory.

GORANI: Right. Well, it wasn't just that as well with the conversation, Brian Klaas with the president of Mexico where he basically said, stop

talking about the fact that Mexico won't pay for this wall. This is going to damage me because this is what the campaign promised me. Brian, what do

you make of those leak transcripts? By the way, we're still seeing leaks - -


GORANI: -- despite the fact John Kelly, the chief of staff.

KLAAS: Yes. I think there's two aspects of this. One is that the leak is actually very damaging itself because diplomatic call should have presumed

privacy. And this will do damage beyond Trump. It's very difficult to put Pandora's Box back together after it's been opened.

And now, the next president, Democrats should be worried about this too because if there's a Democratic president in the White House, they need to

be able to talk with other world leaders without the idea that this is going to be in Washington Post. So, I think those leak is serious.

GORANI: Right.

KLAAS: The second aspect of this though is that Trump is very different when he talks candidly about things that are perceived to be core issues

for him in policy trips. So, the wall for example when he talk to president Mexico he said, look, this is a tiny thing in substance. It's

very important politically. That's probably pretty big news to his supporters who believe that this was a core aspect of why he was elected to

become the president.

GORANI: But -- Stephen, you're saying he's flamboyant. He's unconventional. Nobody is going to argue with you about that. But, he's

just not telling the truth. I mean at some point, when do you -- then when do you ever believe the President of the United States if time and time

again it's been proven that he's basically been untruthful about very important things.

MOORE: Well, the president certainly should be truthful. I mean I go back to this point that was just made that these are supposed to be, they have

to be confidential calls. You know, I'll bet if we have listened to that confidential call. So, you know, John F. Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt or

other presidents, they say some things in private. No questions about it that they would never say in public.

And look, I think this is problem if the president can't speak frankly in ways just other world leaders that he might not say in public. And, you

know, do you call him a liar because he says one thing maybe in a private conversation other to the public. I think that statement is too power.

GORANI: What do you think?

KLAAS: Well, I think that the question here is whether is lying once the content of the call becomes public because he did call it fake news when it

was said reported for example about the --

GORANI: But they also said the president of Mexico called him about the wall a few days ago.

KLAAS: Exactly.

GORANI: And Pena Nieto said we haven't spoken since Hamburg.

KLAAS: There is a pattern of dishonesty in this White House. It is not just this call and the characterizations over that to that fact. It's also

about the Donald Jr. e-mails. It's about Trump drafting a statement related to those e-mails. It's about Michael Flynn investigation. It's

about all sorts of different things where there is simply a propensity to lie until cut. And I think that's a real problem.

I think that there is separate issue on the leaks of this call. But what is -- what came out of the leaks is troubling. And in fact, Donald Trump

will misrepresent to the public until he is cut. He will call something fake news until the news media, the very real news media shows that he was

lying. And that's not -- that's the problem because you cannot --

[15:35:11] GORANI: And Stephen, you want to react to this.

MOORE: -- one quick point on this, you know, Barack Obama was caught saying some very impolitic things that when he thought he was off camera or

when the microphone was off and, you know, he was quite embarrassed by that. I remember, you know, when some of the con -- private conversation I

think was refute, and then others where he said, you know, well, we'll take care of this later that kind of thing. So this is not the first president

who has been caught, you know, saying things that might contradict what he says in public.

GORANI: I wanted -- I want to bring up a number that I ask specific that I thought was interesting from a poll from a Quinnipiac poll, Stephen, you

might have seen that. The headline figure was not good by the way for Donald Trump. His approval rating according to this particular poll dipped

to a new low of 33 percent. But among non-college educated whites, for the first time he's under 50 percent, in February he was at 56 percent approval

rating with non-college educated whites. Today, he's at 43 percent. His popularity and this is undeniable is really sinking at the stage, Stephen

won't you agree?

MOORE: Well actually, if his approval rating and that poll is 43 percent, that's a bit of an improvement, you know, this is a price for that --

GORANI: No. No, with non-college educated whites, it's that subsection. So --


GORANI: So it was at 56 in February, it's not at 43.

MOORE: Look, I think Donald Trump has been very consistent about this that the polls have been so wrong, I mean, let's face it. I mean, the polls

said that, you know, Donald Trump had, you know, one and 20 chance of winning the election and he won the election. I mean, I sort of agree with

Donald Trump. The only poll that really matters is the one that was taken in November over an election year.

And so, you know, has he had rough spot here, no question about it, I mean, he's met a lot of gaps, he's not made a lot of unpaid for shares, there's

no doubt about that. But let's face it. The other thing that's going on that's going to improve those numbers a lot is the economy has improve a

lot. We've got a record stock market. We've got a really good jobs report. We had one of the best economic growth numbers we've had in a

couple of years.

So there's a kind of new optimism. And I'll bet you how that's going to be reflected in the polls in the next couple of months.

GORANI: And Brian, Stephen has a point, it is true that the stock market had a better record, it hit 22,000. GDP numbers were better than expected

in Q2. The economic picture is improving largely and the only poll that matters is the one in which people, you know, the only numbers that matter

is the results of the Election Day polling.

KLAAS: Let's correct a few things here. First stuff, the national polls were almost bang on in 2016. They said that Hillary Clinton will win the

popular vote by 3percent on average. She won by 2.1 percent as well as in the margin of error. Even if you accept that there's a margin that are

broader than he still has forth the unpopular by any stance even if they're off by 5 percent, he's way underwater for a president to stage.

Beyond that, the jobs numbers and the economy that he inherited from Obama was always there. The slip and approval has happened in spite of that.

And that's what's so astonishing as we've had numbers this low before for George W. Bush for example after the Iraq War, you know, wins really poorly

and also --

GORANI: It was at this level towards the end of second term.

KLASS: Exactly. So Trump -- here is some kind of (INAUDIBLE), Trump was at 60 percent disapproval in Gallup -- in the Gallup poll yesterday. And he

also was several weeks ago. Carter never reached 60 percent disapproval. Reagan never reached to 60 disapproval. George H. W. Bush did after 1255

days, Clinton never did. George W. Bush ended after 1700 days, Obama never did.

So he has six months in to his presidency, he's at a level of disapproval that only two out of the last several presidents had ever achieved in the

worst parts of their term and this in spite of the fact that the stock market is going up and the job numbers are still continuing to maintain

pace with the Obama presidency.


KLAAS: And that's why he's got no wiggle room because if something goes wrong, it will most certainly will because it always does for presidents,

where does he go? He's almost to the level where Nixon was when Nixon resigned.

GORANI: Stephen, how do you respond to that? Because, I mean, you shouldn't see your approval rating flip at all with good unemployment

numbers, good growth numbers as well, we've talk to you to exceeded expectations although by the way, during the Obama presidency, we saw many

quarters reached the 2.4, 2.5 annualized increase. So it's not like that was that a complete outlier number. But at the same time is it -- should

it be concerning for the administration that his approval is not going up?

MOORE: Of course. Yes, it should be. And look, I agree those approval numbers are problem for him. And I'm not denying that and it makes it hard

for him to govern frankly because it's hard for him to, you know, control and push Congress to get things done if he doesn't have, you know, a 50

percent approval rating. I agree that he needs to when I talked to my friends at the White House and occasionally the Donald Trump is so lucky,

got to get that approval rating now if he want to, you know, govern successfully.

But look, the economy turn on a dime the day that Donald Trump was elected. We saw the stock market go up by 700 points, you know, the day after he

elected. The market's employers, businesses, really liked the Obama -- the Trump agenda. You know, the idea that this is the continuation the Obama

economy, the economy grow up 1.5 percent in Barack Obama's last year in office is now growing well, over 2.5 percent. That's a pretty big

improvement in just six months.

[15:40:22] GORANI: And we're seeing the Dow there at 22,000. I want to play a clip there of what happened between my colleague, Jim Acosta

yesterday in the briefing rooms Stephen, and Stephen Miller, a Trump aid it was tasty exchange about the immigration plan. Let's listen to that

conversation or that exchange.


JIM ACOSTA, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: This whole notion of well, they could learn -- you know, they have to learn English before they get to the

United States. Are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain or Australia?

STEPHEN MILLER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE POLICY ADVISER: Jim, actually, I honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only

people from Great Britain and Australia would know English.

It's absolutely -- it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree that in your mind -- no, this is an amazing -- This is an amazing moment.

I just want to say --

ACOSTA: It sounds like you're trying to engineer the racial and ethnic flow of people into this country.

MILLER: That is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things you've ever said.


GORANI: All right. Steven Moore, what's coming in this briefing room? It's becoming the sights of exchanges are becoming more and more common.

What do you make of it?

MOORE: In the last days that there's no debate that there is a hostile relationship between Donald Trump and the press. Stephen Miller is

somebody I know. I mean, look, Stephen Miller had it exactly right.

I mean, what the CNN reporter said was stupid. I mean, it's not true that only people in the U.K. and Australia speak English. People speak English

all over the world. And incidentally, I agree -- I'm very pro immigration.

I think immigration is very important for the United States economy. I think we need legal immigrants. There's no question about it. But there -

- it's just a fact that when immigrant coming -- they only coming to the country --

GORANI: Well, I think his point was -- but I think his point was, you don't have to speak English in order to immigrate to United States.

Learning English and your kids will speak English and you can build that I'm sure. How the U.S. --

MOORE: OK. The point I just want to make on that is if it is worn. I'd looked that the economic concept for quants on immigration how immigrants

when they do when they come in to the country, if they speak English, they do a lot better economically than if they don't.

GORANI: Last word to you Brian on this one?

KLAAS: Well, I think this is a distraction frankly because these bills are already bleeding from the Republican and the Senate. They don't think it

should become law. And I also think we forget our roots. And Stephen Miller has, you know, basically said he's distance himself from the Emma

Lazarus poem that's on the Statue of Liberty which is sort of a parable to the administration.

He's turning his back on American values. And we were built as a country including my ancestors coming in the United States not speak in English,

and I think that's something we should not lost sight of it. It's something were -- this is the identity of the country. It's a melting pot.

And the more that we resided to that, the more we resided of our identity.

GORANI: All right. Hopefully we'll have you two -- Stephen, OK, very quickly though.

MOORE: You know, we just -- you know, it's a good debate to have. Who do we want to have come to the country, should we move towards a more merit

based system? You know, I'm of two minds on that. I think we should have good national debate about that.

GORANI: All right. Yes, absolutely. Certainly, it's a debate worth having and it's one I'm glad that you two were able to weigh-in on in this

particular conversation. Brian Klaas, Stephen Moore, thanks to both of you. I appreciate your time on the program.

MOORE: Thank you.

GORANI: We often report on Travel Advisories for war-torn countries from the U.S. State Department or the British Foreign Office, but what about a

warning to travelers going to specific American state. A Civil rights proposition to travel warning for Missouri, the NAACP says people of color

traveling there should use extreme caution. Listen.


BRANDON ELLINGTON, MISSOURI LAWMAKER: People should be extremely concerned that we have a national organization that is paying the Missouri as a

racist state.

TERRESA PERRY, COMMUNITY ACTIVIST: I'm glad they put it there so they can no lesser rectifying whatever it is. Kansas City could together and unite

and make this a better place to live in, so others of crisis that we have great place to live.


GORANI: A Missouri lawmaker and community activist talking there about this warning. CNN Martin Savidge joins me now from the CNN Center in

Atlanta with more on this travel warning, Martin.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello Hala. And you said it, not so perfectly there because you're right many of us who were accustomed to

hearing countries give travel warnings to their citizens about going to other war-torn parts of the world. This though is an American Civil Rights

Organization a very historic one, they expect in 1909 that is giving a warning about Americans.

In this case, minority Americans traveling to an American state. It's extraordinary. And it just is the first time that the NAACP has ever done

anything like this. Let me just read you an exore of some of that warning and it goes like this quote, individuals traveling in the state are advised

to travel with extreme caution. Race, gender and color based crimes have a long history of in Missouri.

[15:45:12] Now, actually that is problem in a number of states in the United States. So, Missouri is not the only one here. So, what is about

this to the forefront, why is Missouri being the one that's spoken upon (ph) on the NACCP right now? That's probably is the result of something

called Senate Bill 43 in Missouri that is brought about this legislation. Hala.

GARONI: Martin, thanks you very much. We're going to go to our colleague Brooke Baldwin in breaking news on the mother investigation in the United


BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. A big breaking development here in this Russia investigation, the Wall Street Journal at the moment is

reporting that special counsel Bob Mueller has impaneled a grand jury here with regard to Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

So, I got t a lot of lawyers, I want to bring in and walk us through exactly what this means here in this investigation I had. Danny Cevallos,

Jeff Toobin is on the phone. Paul Callan is here with me in New York and Chris Cillizza is in Washington. But Jeff Toobin let me just begin with

you on the phone. What -- how significant is this? What does this mean?

JEFF TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's certainly significant. But I don't think we should overstated what it means is that Mueller can now take

sworn testimony in front of the grand jury and starts pinning people, asking people to testify. And of course, if he gets enough evidence he can

now ask the grand jury for an indictment of people.

Now, just because the grand jury is impaneled doesn't mean that there will be indictment. But you can have indictments without a grand jury. So, it

is certainly a significant step, it shows that he means business, it shows that he is doing a serious criminal investigation which he thinks should be

proceed -- should proceed. But it does not mean that criminal charges are imminent nor doesn't mean criminal charges will ever even happen.

BALDWIN: Paul Callan is this -- Hala, this is mean they're just deeper in the investigation and a new phase in the investigation was it tell you.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, it means that deeper in the investigation. You don't impanel a grand jury unless there's a suspicion

that an investigation, a deeper investigation is going to reveal something. And remember prosecutors have enormous power over the grand jury they


A famous New York judge once said that I -- you know, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. And the reason he said that, is that the

prosecutor is alone in the room with the grand jurors as the investigation continues. Sometimes everyday for a month they take along with the grand


BALDWIN: -- saying, there's no cross examination, there's no -- it's just the prosecutor and so they get they what they want.

CALLAN: Sure, the grand jury can ask questions in witnesses if they have questions that are different on the prosecutors. But it develops sort of a

simpatico, a friendship between the grand jurors and the prosecutor. And they'll pretty much do what the prosecutors wants them to do as a general


BALDWIN: Walk us exactly how this works. We talked about grand juries. They're just regular folks, right? What, in grand jury like this, it does

in two dozen people.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Exactly yes. In the federal rules that 16 to 23 persons and you only 12 to return what's called the true bill. In

other words an indictment, yes we found enough probable cause. And you know, we talk about grand juries in terms of accusatory or investigatory

functions. But at their core grand juries are about finding probable cause that a crime has been committed. That's it.

The only reason we called them grand is because they're large as supposed to what is a petit jury, the small jury that you see at trial. That's the

only difference. These are the same citizens that are drawn from the community. But as Paul said and Paul's sat in as a prosector on many grand

jury, you have a one sided relationship with the grand jury as a prosecutor. There are no defense attorneys. There's no cross examination.

So, it's no surprise that indictments are common and relatively easy to get.

BALDWIN: In terms of -- so it will be easy to get the probable cause to then continue on to the next page, is that what you're telling me?

CILLIZA: It only means probable cause is more like than not that a crime has been committed and the people accused or believe who have done it are

the doers. And when you have only one side of the story and all the evidence that a prosecutor submits to the jury -- to a grand jury, they

usually end up indicting.

Would they indicting ham sandwich? I'm not so sure but you get the idea.

CALLAN: The probable cause finding means that they're going to brand indictment and they'll be a jury throughout to follow. I think, you know,

when I think of grand jury is being impanelled and why such an important thing, the prosecutor now has a tool which he can use to get an indictment.

But he has a very big investigative tool as well because the grand jury could issue subpoenas.

The grand jury can compel you to come before it to testify. If an FBI agent shows up at your house and says I like to take your statement you can

say, I'm not talking to you, get out of here. But you if you get a grand jury subpoena, you've got to appear in front of grand jury, now you can

assert the Fifth Amendment once you do, unless you're given immunity but that tool is in place. And prosecutors will use it to gather large amount

of evidence that they can't normally get.

[15:50:13] BALDWIN: But we will Jeff Toobin back to you on the phone. We will never know. The public will never know. It's not a big deal that we

know that this grand jury has been impaneled significant and then significant in this investigation that the public knows. But we will never

actually know what happens with in among the grand jurors correct? We just will know if probable cause happens and the process continues. Did we lose

Toobin? Let's get --

TOOBIN: I'm sorry. I apologized. I lost you there for a second Brooke.

BALDWIN: No. My question was just we will never know whatever happens in this with the persecutor in this grand jurors. We will never know what

comes of it as far as substance. We will just know if probable cause has reached and therefore continues on in the process, correct?

TOOBIN: Well, the -- most likely that's what we'll know. Although if there's a trial and the same witnesses are called in the grand jury and are

called in the trial, their testimony then is turned over to the defense as a prior statement. But for the most part, grand jury proceedings remain

secret. And all that we know is even when they issue indictment.

So, they are secret proceeding, they usually stay secret forever. But, certainly we do know if they issue an indictment and of course that's the

most important thing they do or don't do.

BALDWIN: OK. So, what about a politics of all of this? Chris Cillizza, I want to come to you there in Washington, you know, we know that despite all

of the president's intel chiefs and what they've said about Russian interference. The president has yet to say definitively, yes, this

happened. He doesn't like the fact that he or his aids are being investigated. How do we anticipate how this is responded to where you are?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER AND EDITOR AT LARGE: Well, what's interesting Brooke, last week we had, you know, between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m.

we would get 5, 6, 7 Donald Trump tweets about a variety of some vectors of his thoughts throughout the day. We haven't had as much of that this week.

Now, I really hesitate to describe pattern to this.

You know, he may be he just not doing it. But if there was going to be a moment where Donald Trump would break his -- let's say three days long

Twitter hiatus or, you know, Twitter being a little bit better, politically speaking on Twitter. This would probably be it. You're right about the

Russian investigation. And also so he's been very public about his dislike for the Mueller investigation.


CILLIZZA: Very mad at Jeff Sessions for having recused himself for pleadingly saying he was disappointed, saying that the investigation is

nothing but a partisan witch hunt and a total hoax. That's the kind of thing you might expect to see here from Trump because as Jeff Toobin and

everybody else points out, this is not for sure that Donald Trump or the folks around him did anything criminal but it is stuff that suggest Mueller

is moving forward, right.

We just heard a word yesterday, Mueller is hired at least 16 lawyers for this special counsel probe. We know how this news that the investigation

is at least taking a preliminary next step. Those are the kind of things that in the past have set him off and he usually uses Twitter as his prefer


I'll add, he's going to big thing tonight in West Virginia sort of campaign style rally before he had some vacation. So, I look to that to see -- I

look to that to see how much message discipline he's going to be able to exert.

BALDWIN: Good way to put it. Chris Cillizza, thank you so much. Gentlemen thank you. We have more in the breaking news here that's all on

Wall Street Journal here that the special counsel Bob Mueller has impaneled this grand jury in this Russia investigation. Back in a moment.


[15:57:04] BALDWIN: All right, we're back for the Breaking News here on CNN and the fact with the special counsel in this whole Russia

investigation. Bob Mueller has now officially according to the Wall Street Journal impaneled this grand jury looking into in investigating Russia's

interference with the 2016 presidential election. I still got these two great legal minds to my right, just broadening the discussion, Paul Callan,

to you first just on we're talking about of this grand jury, it's all about whether or not there's probable cause to then lead to this indictment but

it doesn't always in, in an indictment to be fair.

CALLAN: No, it doesn't. And I think we have to be very clear about this. The investigation of a crime is done by the grand jury and it's used as a

tool of the prosecutor. But the grand jury may decide there is no criminal activity. And grand jury sometimes to length the investigations and they

closed with no indictments. Sometimes they'll close and ask to issue a report if they discover some kind of malfeasance in government that is not

of a criminal nature. And of course other times they issue indictments.

So, and it's too early for us really to know which way this grand jury is going. Although, I think the one thing we can say is Mueller was steer the

grand jury and if Mueller feels criminal charges should be brought there's a good chance, they will be brought. If he thinks on the other hand

there's no evidence to support criminal charges.


CALLAN: You'll see no criminal charges.

BALDWIN: When I think of grand juries, I think of secretive. Will anything come out from this process? The public can know about.

CEVALLOS: It shouldn't. But it could. You know, we were just talking about this with Paul that grand jury witnesses, not police, not the

government --

BALDWIN: These are the people who are questioning before the grand jury.

CEVALLOS: You come in and it could be just a somebody who saw something go down on the street or it could be one of the major sort of targets.

They're not bound by the rules and secrecy. They can walk out of the grand jury and you better believe people are going to want to hear what they have

to say and they're going to have to make a decision whether or not they feel like talking after testifying in front of a grand jury or maybe even

asserting Fifth Amendment because they are always -- these witnesses privilege not too testify. And they can let the prosecutor know in advance

and usually they'll be excused from even going.

BALDWIN: What about these grand jurors, these are presumably people in Washington D.C. just regular folks. I mean would they be inherently biased

at all in this?

CALLAN: Well, they've taken oath just as the jurors in a regular case taken oath to be fair and in partial and to judge the case only based on

the evidence. Grand jurors also taken oath of secrecy. And if a grand juror were to leak information to the press about what was going on in the

grand jury, that grand juror could windup in jail. And so, the system is very protective of grand jurors of their identity and their secrecy


BALDWIN: OK. Thank you guys both so much. I'm sure Jake is going to pick up what we left off with this news from the Wall Street Journal on this

grand jury here involve Bob Mueller.

I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you so much for being with me here on the Thursday, we'll leave. And Jake Tapper starts now.