Return to Transcripts main page


Former Senior KGB Agent Speaks to CNN; Daniels Attorney: There's Evidence Trump Knew Of Payment; Jewish Group Criticize UK Opposition Party Leader; Massive Crowds Rally Across U.S. Against Gun Violence; Orange Snow Blankets Parts Of Russia. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired March 26, 2018 - 15:00   ET




HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from CNN London, I'm Hala Gorani.

Tonight, tough move against Moscow, America and its allies expel more than a hundred Russian diplomats as punishment for the poisoning of an ex-spy in

the U.K.

Also, this hour, the White House says Donald Trump does not believe Stormy Daniels after the porn star spoke out on her alleged affair with then

Citizen Trump.

And a terrifying fire engulfs a shopping mall in Siberia trapping many inside including young children. We'll bring you that story ahead.

We begin, though, with an unmistakable message to Moscow, nearly two dozen countries on two continents are now standing shoulder to shoulder

diplomatically with Britain. They are throwing out Russian diplomats in a powerful act of collective punishment.

Here you see all the countries taking action over the poisoning of a former Russian spy on British soil. The United States is kicking out the biggest

number of diplomats, 60 in all, some of them were posted at the United Nations suspected of being intelligence operatives there in New York.

The U.S. is also closing the Russian consulate in Seattle in the state of Washington. Russia is saying fine but expect retaliation. It is again

denying any involvement with the chemical attack in Salisbury.


ANATOLY ANHONOV, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S. (through translator): What the United States of America is doing today, they are destroying what little

remained of U.S.- Russian ties. I would add that all the responsibility for ruining Russian-American relations is on the United States of America.


GORANI: Britain's prime minister says no country except Russia had the capability, the intent, and the motive to carry out the nerve attack in

Salisbury. Theresa May is praising Britain's allies for what she called the biggest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence agents in history.


THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Together we have sent a message that we will not tolerate Russia's continued attempts to flaunt international

law and undermine our values. European nations will also ask to strengthen their resilience to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear related

risks as well as bolstering their capabilities to deal with hybrid threats.


GORANI: Well, let's get to our reporters now, senior international correspondent, Matthew Chance is live in Moscow, White House reporter,

Jeremy Diamond, joins us from Washington. We also have CNN military and diplomatic analyst, John Kirby, at the State Department.

Matthew, I want to start with you first in Moscow. What is Russia expected to do in response to these moves?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Hala, normally, of course, Russia adopts, you know, a reciprocal action. He

cites this principle of reciprocities and we are expecting to see them do exactly that. This time expel similar amount of U.S. diplomats from Russia

and of course, from the other, what is it, 20 or so countries that have expelled Russian diplomats in this concerted way today.

But, of course, there may be polls for the Russians about the fact that there is such unity on the part of the western allies, United States,

Britain, the European Union, and others as well, in a way that they have not seen before.

I mean, if there were any hopes in the Kremlin of limiting this nerve agents attack to a bilateral dispute between Britain and Moscow, well, all

of that has been dashed now, and I think it sends a powerful signal not just condemning the nerve agents attack, which, of course, Britain points

the finger of blame at Russia for.

And of course, Russia denies, but also it is a kind of, you know -- there is a sense in which they are saying, look, you know, we are losing patience

with all the ways in which Russia violates international norms, whether it be in Ukraine or Syria or over Olympic doping or election meddling.

This is the west I think finally coming together in unison and that may give the Russians (inaudible) whether or not it will change their behavior

entirely again to amended I think is still unclear.

GORANI: Matthew Chance live in Moscow, thanks very much to you. Let me get to Jeremy Diamond at the White House. So, we understand according to

reports that Donald Trump personally made the decision to throw out these diplomats and close the consulate in Seattle.

Now that goes against some of the statements he's made in the past or his - - his unwillingness in some cases due to criticize or condemn Russia directly. So, why this and why now?

[15:05:02] JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That is true. That is true, and it does kind of fit with the how this White House has behaved

as it regards Russia. We've seen the president be publicly, you know, very conciliatory towards Vladimir Putin rarely condemning him or rebuking him,

if at all.

But we have seen some actions and today is the strongest to date some actions critical of Russia and going after Russian destabilizing activities

and so that is what we saw once again today where we have yet to hear from the president himself actually on his decision.

But senior administration officials including Raj Shah, the deputy White House press secretary, who just finish briefing here at the White House

making clear that this was a decision made by the president and one that sends a clear signal as to the U.S.' intentions and the US' belief that

Russia carried out this nerve agents attack on British soil.

And of course, you know the president would have had to make this decision himself. However, Raj Shah, the deputy press secretary, struggled to say

why the president did not raise this on his call with Vladimir Putin last week.

The two men have not spoken since and so the president hasn't had any direct contact with Putin about this nerve agents attack instead Vladimir

Putin seeing today his 60 diplomats suspected intelligence operatives being expelled from the United States.

GORANI: Just a quick question before I get to John Kirby, why specifically the consulate in Seattle?

DIAMOND: Well, what the administration has said so far is that it is near submarine bases in that area. They have not said specifically whether they

believe that Russian intelligence operatives were spying on that base. But we do know that that is where there is a U.S. submarine base. And the

administration did say it is proximity to that basis as one of the reasons for that consulate to be close.

GORANI: Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much. I will let you go. And John Kirby, you're not at the State Department, but you are in Washington, D.C.

at our bureau. Let's talk a little bit more, but this is quite significant, not because in each country apart from the United States, the

number of Russian diplomats expelled is huge.

I mean, in some countries, it's one or two, three, four, but collectively this is a show of unity. What do you make of it?

JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: A hundred percent agree with that, Hala. This is significant in that regard that that this was

done in coordination not only well done here in the United States between the interagency, the U.S. government, but with governments overseas and

particularly our European allies and partners.

I think that is the real strong message here. Now, I do not personally think it is going to change Putin's calculus much. I think it is going to

stop his aggressive moves or his malign behavior, but I do think it sends a strong message to him that if he thinks it is pretty easy to divide and

cause disunity among western powers, he has got nothing (inaudible).

GORANI: But I wonder if we could look at it another way, I mean, if he feels the heat, if indeed Russia, the Kremlin is behind this attempted

killing of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, England, and for the first time in a very long time, all these western countries are coming together.

Some coming together and joining the group of countries expelling diplomats that you might not have expected. The Baltic states you expect, but others

maybe not. Could it be that they now look at this and think, OK, let us be very careful what our next move is?

KIRBY: Well, I hope so. And I think that certainly the messages that or I should say message -- I think that is the outcome that all these nations

would like to have that this would be sort of punitive in a way and would maybe hold them to account for better behavior.

But I think everybody -- and I think they are and they should look at this with, you know, clear eyes here. This is Vladimir Putin we are talking

about. He is going to keep pushing the envelope until somebody pushes it back on him. And so, I do not know that we can just count on this alone --

GORANI: So, this is not enough, you don't think?

KIRBY: I do not think it is enough to stop his malign behavior, Hala, but I do think it is an important message to him about his accountability and

about the solidarity of the west. I do think that all countries and I was glad to see the White House Press Secretary say this today that we have to

consider other options too.

We have to be willing if he retaliates in kind, which he will. Do we up the ante now and maybe put on sanctions? I think we need to continue to

think about other options that might be available to us.

GORANI: All right. And quick last one, I mean, Donald -- this was surprising, and I was in Brussels at the European Council Summit on

Thursday, and even them it seemed like it was not necessarily on the cards for all the countries to join Theresa May in taking real concrete measures

against Russia, but it did happen, and I wonder why now? Why now do you think?

KIRBY: I think for a couple reasons, I think first of all that the dastardly way in which this attack, I mean, this was nerve agent. I mean,

this is dangerous, and now you have seen Theresa May come out and say that there may be a hundred other people, who might have been affected by their

residual effects of this.

That is a really unique way and very dangerous way for you to try to conduct an assassination overseas, and it does affect other people. I

think it was the way it was done. I think the sort of brazen way it was done and also it is in time and space and all the other things that Russia

is doing here.

[15:10:08] This was sort of a culminating moment really important for the west to hang together here and I am really glad that they did that. I am

also really glad to see that the United States stood by our staunch ally in Great Britain and really upped the ante and took it -- took it so


GORANI: All right. Certainly, this is dominating the headlines today. John Kirby in Washington, as always, thanks very much for your analysis.

As far as the British prime minister is concerned, you know, she's been going through major Brexit headache obviously trying to discuss with her

now European allies soon-to-be members of an organization that Britain will leave in a couple of years.

All of these terms about Brexit, but Theresa May says that if the Kremlin's goal is to divide and intimidate the West, it has spectacularly failed.

Sam Vinograd is a U.S. security analyst for CNN. I do wonder -- I mean, it is ironic, right, that the U.K. is discussing leaving the E.U. and

discussing the divorce terms of its separation with the E.U., and yet needing these allies now more than ever that it was the victim of a nerve

agent attack in a town in England.

It is interesting how things change in your needs and your diplomatic needs for allies change depending on the circumstances.

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Most definitely. It is certainly not great timing, but I do think it shows that even as Brexit

proceeds that the United Kingdom can count on its allies around the world. We've had European countries take moves today with the U.K.

We've also had the U.S. and Canada. So, whether -- whatever happens with Brexit, it is clear that the international community is at least starting

to come together on these issues. You know, we had Poland, for example, kick out Russian diplomats for the first time ever.

That's significant, particularly because Poland is dangerously close to the Russian border. We know for the Eastern European countries, for example,

Russia can turn off the lights. Russia can turn off the heat.

And so, when you look at -- when you look at the makeup of countries that was involved today, I think it is really a strong sign that everyone had

enough and the real question for me is what comes next.

GORANI: That's the question for me too, and when you say that Russia can turn off the lights and the heat in a country like Poland. I mean, they

supply more than a third of natural gas to Germany. It's not just, you know, these Eastern European countries. There is a very deep and

interconnected energy relationship between Russia and many European countries and that complicates matters obviously.

VINOGRAD: It definitely does, and I think that is why we have seen Merkel at least up until now be a little more tepid on her response to Vladimir

Putin. She has been left out front accusing Putin of the full range of malign activities that he's been engaged in.

So, I think now that she has been sworn in as chancellor again, are we going to see a pivot from Germany. Are we going to see a pivot from the

United States? Is this a new era for both countries when it comes to punitive measures against Russia?

GORANI: Why do you think Trump is doing this now? Because according to a source who spoke to CNN about this that Trump personally made the decision

on these 60?

VINOGRAD: I think that at this point it is hard to know what constitutes and I hate to use this word because it was used by Obama and we had bad

consequences redline. But what is a redline for action at this point?

We had election meddling. We had cyber hacks. Now we had basically WMD attack in the middle of the U.K. Is that the bar for everybody saying

enough is enough? I really hope so. But it is hard --

GORANI: But Sam, we haven't heard from Donald Trump -- sorry to jump in, we hadn't really heard from him make direct --

VINOGRAD: I think that's good staffing because -- and it gives me no pleasure to say this. The president is not good when he is in front of the

cameras and we know he is not good when he is on the phone with Vladimir Putin. So, this is one instance to me where John Kelly, I imagine it came

from him, and said, let's just put this down on paper. Let's take the actions speak louder than words.

Of course, it would be great if President Trump said something solid on this, but knowing how untrustworthy he is, I would rather we just move

forward with the punishment.

GORANI: What about John Bolton? He is the incoming national security adviser. He is super hawkish. He is a big fan of regime change and

military invasions. I wonder if he is also weighing in on this and making a difference?

VINOGRAD: I think it's entirely possible because he has called for imposing costs on Russia that Russia actually cares about. He's even

talked about launching offense of cyber operations against Russia. Russia is doing it against us. Let us do it against them.

He does not think, and he spoke about this on Fox News and elsewhere, he does not think that sanctions are going to do it. So, Bolton could already

be sharing some advice with the president. I think that when he comes in, chairing those National Security Council meetings, the full range of

punitive measures are probably going to be on the table.

[15:15:02] GORANI: All right. Sam Vinograd, thanks very much. Great having you on the program this evening.

So, that is one storm, but there is another one, obviously, that you may have heard of and the name is Stormy actually. In the last hour, the White

House has responded to claim made by the porn film star, Stormy Daniels on "60 Minutes" about her alleged affair with President Trump. Listen to this

answer from the White House briefing.


RAJ SHAH, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: With respect to that interview, I will say the president strongly, clearly, and has consistently

denied these underlying claims and the only person who has been inconsistent is the one making the claims.


GORANI: Speaking to Anderson Cooper on "60 Minutes," Daniels said she was threatened to keep quiet and felt pressured into signing document denying

she had a relationship with Trump. CNN's Sara Sidner has more.


SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Stephanie Clifford a.k.a. Stormy Daniels breaking her silence to "60 Minutes" about her alleged

affair with Donald Trump and the aftermath.

STORMY DANIELS, ADULT FILM ACTRESS: You are special. You remind me of my daughter.

SIDNER: Daniels telling Anderson Cooper that was what Trump told her when they met for the first time in 2006. She says their only sexual encounter

happened afterwards in his Tahoe Resort hotel room.

DANIELS: He was like have you seen my new magazines?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: He was showing you his own picture on the cover of a magazine?

DANIELS: And so, it's like does this normally work for you? And I was like someone should take that magazine and spank with you with it, and --

you know, give me that. You wouldn't. Hand it over and so he did, and I was like turn around, drop them.

COOPER: You told Donald Trump to turn around and take off his pants.


COOPER: And did he?


SIDNER: Eventually, the joking stopped, and she says she and Trump had sex for the first and only time during their relationship. The White House has

denied the affair.

COOPER: Did you want to have sex with him?

DANIELS: No, but I did not -- I did not say no. I am not a victim. I am not --

COOPER: It was entirely consensual?

DANIELS: Yes. Yes.

COOPER: You work in an industry where condom use is an issue, did he use a condom?


COOPER: Melania Trump had recently given birth to her son just a few months before, did he mention his wife or child at all on this?

DANIELS: I asked, and he brushed aside, yes, you know, don't worry about that. We don't even -- we have separate rooms inside.

SIDNER: About four years after the relationship ended, Clifford talked about the alleged affair to the sister company of "InTouch" magazine. She

was offered $15,000 for the story, but she says she never collected. Clifford says the article did not initially publish.

Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen, reportedly threatened to sue the magazine. A few weeks after she did that interview, Clifford said she was personally

threatened in Las Vegas.

DANIELS: I was in the parking lot going to a fitness class with my infant daughter, and a guy walked up on me and said to me, leave Trump alone,

forget the story, and then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said a beautiful little girl, it would be a shame if something happened to

her mom.

SIDNER: Daniels did not file a police report about the alleged threat, saying, she was too afraid. Cohen's attorney now accusing Clifford of

defamation and demanding a retraction in a letter immediately following the "60 Minutes" interview, insisting Cohen had absolutely nothing whatsoever

to do with any such person or incident and does not even believe that such a person exists or that such incident ever occurred.

Cohen brokered a confidentiality agreement with Clifford days before the presidential election paying her $130,000 to keep quiet although Clifford

says she wanted to tell her story.

COOPER: Was it hush money to stay silent?

DANIELS: Yes. The story was coming out again. I was concerned for my family and their safety.

COOPER: I think some people watching this are going to doubt that you entered into this negotiation because you fear for your safety. They are

going to think that you saw an opportunity.

DANIELS: I think the fact that I did not even negotiate. I just quickly said yes to this very strict contract and what most people will agree with

me extremely low number is all the proof I need.

SIDNER: But in 2018, Clifford signed two letters unequivocally denying the affair. One was sent by Cohen, the other by Daniel's former manager, Gina

Rodriguez, saying, "I am not denying this affair because of hush money, I am denying it because it never happened."

Clifford telling Cooper she was pressured by her manager and attorney at the time, a claim her former lawyer denies.

COOPER: So, you signed and released a statement that said, I am not denying this affair because I was paid hush money. I am denying it because

it never happened. That is a lot.


COOPER: If it was untruthful, why did you sign it?

DANIELS: Because they made it sound like I had a choice.

COOPER: I mean, no one was putting a gun to your head?

DANIELS: Not physical violence, no.

COOPER: You thought that there would be some sort of legal repercussion if you didn't sign it.

[15:20:10] DANIELS: Correct. As a matter of fact, the exact sentence used was they can make your life hell in many different ways.

COOPER: They being?

DANIELS: I am not exactly sure who they were. I believe it to be Michael Cohen.


GORANI: All right. So, the White House says Mr. Trump does not believe any of her claims are accurate. We in fact had a White House briefing just

a few minutes ago.

Let's get more on the fall out. M.J. Lee joins us now from New York. So, the White House is pushing back. The president, by the way, tweeted first

thing in the morning about the economy, but then tweeted again about fake news, you know, pushing fake stories, never been more voluminous or more

inaccurate, but through it all our country is doing great." So, what is the strategy from the White House right now?

M.J. LEE, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER: Well, it just seems like the strategy here is denial. You heard Raj Shah, the White House spokesperson

one thing. He was not even sure if the president had watch the "60 Minutes" interview last night.

And then as you pointed out, him saying, categorically that the president believes all of the statements that Stormy Daniels made in that interview

are false, partly because she has not been able to corroborate things and also because Shah says that Stormy Daniels has been inconsistent in her own


That seems like a reference to the fact that Stormy Daniels in the past has denied the fact that she had this affair with Donald Trump to begin with.

On the question of, why then would someone have paid her $130,000 for her silence, this is what Raj Shah said.

He said, "False charges are settled out of court all the time." So again, here, trying to make the point that this was a false allegation and that

there happen to be a settlement, but that doesn't necessarily confirm that there was an affair.

I just have to say, you know, this is a pretty striking blanket statement if the White House spokesperson is going out there behind the podium and

saying everything that Stormy Daniels said in this interview the president believes to be false.

Well, then he is believing that her story about the affair is false, the story about the NDA is false. The payout is false and also this threat

that she talked about having received in 2011 where she was in a parking lot in Las Vegas and a man came up to her and said essentially you should

drop this story. I see you have an infant daughter there and you would want anything to happen to her mother.

So, this really is a pretty strong defense and I guess, offense actually coming from the White House.

GORANI: I guess, also one of the things that matters most here is whether Americans who watched the interview and others who may have streamed it

online or heard about it believed Daniels or believed the White House's denials.

By the way, speaking of viewership, it's the best ratings for "60 Minutes" program in 10 years since a sit-down interview with Barack Obama and

Michelle Obama in 2008. So, in terms of viewership numbers they are great.

Can we gauge how the Daniels interview is and her claims are playing out with the American public?

LEE: Yes. Well, you know, first of all, in terms of the ratings that are pretty remarkable. Last night, the rating was 22.1 million viewers.

Compare that to the week before with 10 million and President Trump had gone on "60 Minutes" actually soon after the election and that time the

viewership was 19 million.

So, it just goes to show that there is so much public interest in this story and I think the reason that the interview was so important last night

for Stormy Daniels is because we haven't really seen her go in front of a camera and tell the story in her own words.

And there will some credibility issues that she wanted to address, and I think just speaking directly to the camera and speaking directly to the

public about her story, that was a really boring moment for her. And no question and not a surprise why so many people wanted to tune in and hear

her own words.

GORANI: It will be interesting to see how it played out whether or not she changed any minds, whether or not people believe her, but we know there is

a Playboy playmate as well who alleges she had several months affair with the president also interviewed by Anderson Cooper last week. Thanks very

much, M.J. Lee in New York.

By the way, we will be discussing the legal angle here because Stormy Daniels said she signed a nondisclosure agreement. Did she break this

nondisclosure agreement? Did she violate the terms? Can now the president's team sue Stormy Daniels? You know, so many questions out there

about what the strategy legally could be and how this all impact any legal proceedings?

And whether or not the payment that she says was made to her could have also broken some rules? We'll have that in about 6, 7 minutes time.

[15:25:01] Still to come, though, how an ordinary day at the mall turned to tragedy and even worse. Could this have been prevented? We'll be right



GORANI: Now to a heartbreaking story in Central Russia, 64 people have been killed in a fire that swept through a shopping mall. Some of the

victims were children. Investigators say emergency exits were blocked and the alarm system shut off. Max Foster has more.


MAX FOSTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The fire rips through the shopping center as it was packed with people billowing smoke across the

Siberian city of Kemerovo. Hundreds of people were inside the Winter Cherry Entertainment Complex on Sunday afternoon as the emergency services

were called to reports of smoke.

YEVGENY DEDYUKHIN, KEMEROVO REGION EMERGENCIES MINISTRY (through translator): At 4:10 in the afternoon, we received information about smoke

in the shopping mall on the fourth floor where children's playing rooms and cinemas were situated.

FOSTER: As around a hundred people were evacuated, others were trapped by the fire inside. Witnesses say they saw people jumping from the windows in

a desperate attempt to escape. At first, emergency workers could not get to the upper floors of the building because of the strength of the fire,

which caused part of the fourth floor to collapse. Rescuing people instead from the roof with cranes.

SVETLANA PETRENKO, SPOKESWOMAN, RUSSIAN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE (through translator): Investigators have been working round-the-clock.

Eyewitnesses and victims, including tenants and owners of shops are being questioned. Four suspected people were detained and also questioned.

FOSTER: The mall contained a cinema, bowling alley, children's center, and a (inaudible) zoo. Dozens of people, including at least four children have

been killed and many others were in hospital or missing.

DEDYUKHIN (through translator): Currently, 20 psychologists are working with 17 relatives. I mean, those who called us and said that they cannot

contact their children or some adults according to their information were in the shopping mall.

FOSTER: An investigation has been launched and the governor of the Kemerovo Region has announced the victims' families will receive around

$18,000 for each relative killed in the fire. But as rescue crews still search the site and as the death toll rises, the families of those killed

will have questions as to why the fire in this coal mining town turned out to be so deadly. Max Foster, CNN.


GORANI: Still to come tonight, after the poisoning of an ex-Russian spy and his daughter in the U.K., a former KGB agent takes us into the dark

world of espionage.

Plus, now that she has spoken, is Stormy Daniels in hot water? I'll be speaking to Joey Jackson, our legal analyst ahead.


[15:30:14] HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Let's get back to our top story. A colossal show of solidarity for the UK and a force will blow

to Russian intelligence across the world, at least 22 countries have announced the massive expulsion of Russian diplomats with British Prime

Minister Theresa May calling it the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

Now, this all comes on the heel of the poisoning of a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter on UK soil earlier this month. As the

political fallout picks up speed, the shadowy underworld of spies and spy agencies is exposed. CNN's Nic Robertson sat down with a former senior KGB

agent for an insight into what goes on in that world.


NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Three weeks before Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned with a

nerve agent, this man, Boris Karpichkov, a former senior KGB spy, got a warning his life and Skripal's were in danger.

KARPICHKOV: First time, when I was communicated, I took it as a joke.

ROBERTSON: One week after the poisoning, he told the UK's premier breakfast show he didn't bother telling the police because his life had been

threatened before.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're watching this interview, I would imagine they would want to talk to you as a matter of urgency.

ROBERTSON: Now three weeks after the poisoning, he says police have yet to contact him. He's telling us more details about the warning.

KARPICHKOV: I received a phone call from only one person who could call --

ROBERTSON: Somebody you know and trust.

KARPICHKOV: Yes. Yes. He's still deep undercover. Senior field officer of Russian secret service called FSB.

ROBERTSON: What's his job?

KARPICHKOV: Sorry, not even a hint because, you know, just because man would be killed because if I give slightest indications I can't do that.

You can put me on electric chair, I will not reveal his name even there.

ROBERTSON: However, he says he was uniquely placed to get the call.

KARPICHKOV: What is their reason?

ROBERTSON: Because he's your friend.

KARPICHKOV: No, no. It's much more simple. Once, such (INAUDIBLE) happened, I saved his life. She's (INAUDIBLE)

ROBERTSON: You saved his life?

KARPICHKOV: Yes. That's it. That's it. It's understandable. Is it not?

ROBERTSON: Karpichkov says he spied for and against the CIA before Russia's intelligence service, the FSB, turned against him, planned to kill

him. He fled to the UK 20 years ago.

Twelve years ago, on a trip to New Zealand, he says, he was poisoned by Russian agents. Since then, he says, he's investigated hundreds of others

killed by the Soviet and Russian state over the past hundred years, including the murder of Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko in London by

Russian agents in 2006.

[15:35:21] KARPICHKOV: We've written an inquiry. I ran my own investigation and the result of this investigation clearly states that

Putin didn't give an order but Putin was aware that Litvinenko is going to be taken out.

Some senior figure within FSB came up and they put it with this much attention. He doesn't care. He just expressed, you know, OK if he

deserves, it should be done.

ROBERTSON: So, do you believe Sergei Skripal's poisoning would have been something that Putin was aware of in advance?

KARPICHKOV: Yes. It could be the case.

ROBERTSON: So he could have stopped it?


ROBERTSON: And he didn't.

KARPICHKOV: I know Putin.

ROBERTSON: What you're saying is that the state has a system of disposing of its enemies by murder overseas?

KARPICHKOV: Yes. It's --

ROBERTSON: And can that possibly be without Putin, do you believe?

KARPICHKOV: It's not Putin. It's about system.

ROBERTSON: But then, is he not responsibility for the system?

KARPICHKOV: He is responsible. He's creator of system.

ROBERTSON: Karpichkov says he is ready to help UK investigators. He has knowledge of how Russian spies use nerve agents.

ROBERTSON: You were trained in these --

KARPICHKOV: I was instructed, not trained, instructed because you know, just to carry out some precautionary measures -- that's it.


GORANI: And Nic Robertson is on, this time in Jerusalem, and joins me now.

One of the things that I found interesting there about this interview is you're asking is it Putin, he said it's not Putin, it's the system. What

is that mean exactly?

ROBERTSON: Well, one of my takeaways from this as well, Hala, was that he was still, Karpichkov, is still in communications with someone he trusts

who is still an active FSB Russian intelligence undercover agent inside -- working inside here on. So when you try to analyze, you know, how does

this person in front of me, Boris Karpichkov, how does he really know whether or not President Putin might have known about whether or not

Litvinenko or Skripal were going to be attempts on their lives.

He clearly has a certain conduit who has level of information that he trust. So I think -- so on the point --

GORANI: But is he saying that -- but Putin knows or doesn't know? Or that really it doesn't matter that it's the system behind it?

ROBERTSON: Well, he's saying that Putin knows. What he's saying is that Putin doesn't get a -- doesn't get a piece of paper and say, OK. Who are

we going to kill next? There are people who look at what President Putin has said in the past that agents that are across over the other side, but

for the intelligence agencies. So they said he will perhaps kick the bucket, that's been his words in the past. But he would have been aware.

He's saying that this sort of thing could not happen without Putin been aware. And if Putin didn't want it to happen, then he could stop it

happening, because people wouldn't do things without him being aware. But in that context, it's the system.

So this validates in a way what we've heard from the British authorities. Although it does seem to be interesting it this stage, apparently, British

authorities given so the level of expertise and connections he has, haven't discussed this with him. Although we did towards the British government

about this and they did say that they don't discuss who they're speaking with, when they're speaking to them on active ongoing operations.

GORANI: All right. Nic Robertson, thanks very much. Really interesting interview, joining us live from Jerusalem.

And now on that adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels, a day after her "60 MINUTES" interview, in which she talked about her alleged affair with

Donald Trump. Daniels' attorney says, he's just getting started. This isn't to be -- this isn't, sorry, the end, he says, it's the beginning. He

says there will be more evidence ahead to prove the president knew about the $130,000 payment that was part of a non-disclosure deal that was made

by Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

Now, this is not obviously your typical he said, she said. So who should be worried here, Stormy Daniels or President Trump? Joey Jackson, a CNN

legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, joins me now live.

Did Stormy Daniels, Joey, violate the terms of her non-disclosure agreement her by doing this interview?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to see you. The answer is, yes. And the answer is that everyone should be worried. Let's get to her

violation of the terms of the agreement. There was an agreement in place, as we know, for her not to speak. Those agreements are legal, and she

signed. There seems to be an offer of money, there was acceptance of the money. And as a result to that, they're paired to be a meeting of the

minds. And so therefore, she's on the hook.

The next question becomes, well, if she could speak under the agreement, why was she able to speak, because the agreement provided for, you can't

stop someone from speaking, right? We have a first amendment right to speak, but the agreement addresses what the consequences are, Hala, and the

event that you do. One, disgorgement of the fees. Meaning 130,000 has to be paid back. Number two, the agreement provided for $1 million per breach

and what we call liquidated damages here in the states, being the parties could anticipate their damages and provide that in a contract, I think it's

a bit excessive. I don't think the courts would uphold $1 million penalty for breach, but she will have some exposure as a result of her violation of

that agreement.

[15:40:35] GORANI: But if she is sued, the other side then has to share evidence. How does it work in a civil matter? I mean, is there such a

thing called discovery in this case where the attorneys for Stormy Daniels could ask the other side for whatever evidentiary material they have?

JACKSON: You put your finger on the pulse, therein lies the rob, which gets me to Trump exposure and potentially Michael Cohen's exposure. The

big issue here, because there is discovery and what that means is in any litigation, both sides have to turn over information relevant to whatever

they are attempting to prove. In this case, right? The Trump side will have to turn over information and the Stormy side will turn over

information. Why is that problematic? The attorney, Michael Cohen for Donald Trump has indicated that he made that 130,000 payment on his own

accord. That in fact because he loves his client, so then he decided to pay and Trump knew nothing about it. Trump has no idea about this

$130,000. I just did it.

Well, the issue then becomes, was it a campaign contribution? And in the event that it was a campaign contribution, why? You at home might ask,

because it was the timing of election. Election is week and a half away, and you're paying her when this president was under a lot of stress

concerning allegations about women was this the straw or could have been that broke the camel's back. So you're paying her on the eve of the

campaign. So, could it be viewed as an in-kind campaign contribution in the event that it did, Hala, it would exceed the reasonable limits that

individuals can contribute to the campaign.

GORANI: And that would be illegal. It would be illegal.

JACKSON: That would be illegal. And so certainly for Michael Cohen's perspective, and so, OK. He's fine. He violated the campaign

contribution. Now, I'm sure you're going to ask me, well, what about Mr. Trump? Well, the issue then becomes to what extent that he have knowledge

of this? Did he direct this in any way? Did he require this payment? Was there payment back to this? Even though Michael Cohen says there wasn't.

All of that, Hala, will come out in that discovery process, because then you get to look at e-mails, text messages, phone conversations, interview

witnesses who are knowledgeable about this. And the event that Trump direct of this, that's the problem. And in the event that it was not

disclosed and we know it wasn't in terms of the campaign contributions, that's a problem too. So everybody --

GORANI: So, Joey, they might say, we're going to leave it here, because we don't want this process of discovery, because this could be problematic for


JACKSON: They very well may, because of the fact that there's no sense in winning the battle if you lose the war. The implications are very

significant, certainly for the president, an individual if the president decided to donate his own money to the campaign, he can do that. But if

you orchestrate and direct someone behind the scenes to contribute to the campaign, and then you don't disclose it, it's a violation that's looked at

by the federal elections commission and could be looked at by the Department of Justice. So those are major concerns. And a reason why he

may be well advised to leave it alone, but our president normally doesn't take anyone else's advice but his own. So let's see what his mind is


GORANI: Right. And usually, we know what he thinks. Every morning on his Twitter page. But Karen McDougal also interviewed by Anderson Cooper,

who's a former Playboy model. She alleges a several months long affair with the president and their elements of their story that intersect in this

interesting then diagram of the porn star and the playmate. Unprotected sex, that Donald Trump claims Melania has a separate bedroom, and he

compared both of these women to his daughter Ivanka, and that both were asked and pressured to remain silent.

I wonder legally speaking, the fact that you have two accounts where there is overlapping. There are overlapping allegations. What does impact does

that have, if any?

JACKSON: Well, you know what happens -- that's a great point, because it goes to the issue of credibility in the event of one person says, OK.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. But it appears what another party saying it that it now becomes corroborated. There's someone else who's saying

essentially the same thing. And so in terms of weighing in accord of public opinion, the public may have reason to believe that you know what?

Perhaps this is precisely the case.

Now, from a theatrical perspective, this is all very interesting, the point from a legal perspective, clearly as it relates to Stormy -- Ms. Stormy,

OK? As it relates to Stormy, the question becomes the threats are also problematic too. That's not something that needs to be taken lightly and

if it's investigated and proven, that's extortion so that becomes a problem for the president.

[15:45:08] GORANI: She has alleged that she was, in fact, physically threatened in 2011. Just one quick last one on the strategy of her

attorney. Does it -- I mean, it's an interesting strategy if you don't have documentary evidence like text or photos. But if you do, I guess it's

a -- do you think -- because that's the one question she didn't answer in the interview. When Anderson asked her, "Do you additional evidence?" She

didn't want to go there. But if they do, how does that change things if they have pictures or texts or e-mails from Donald --

JACKSON: Well, remember, it changes and I think in a couple of ways, the first of which we reference, and that, of course, is you always want when

you're telling a story for something to back you up. Now, if I'm talking about some affair and what happened, and when it happened, and how it

happened, and who was involved, if there's information out there that supports that by way of text, photos, videos, anything else, it supports

that. And then, of course, that becomes critical. The other way it becomes critical, what if Trump's team now says she's a liar. This never

happened. It's not so. She's fabricated.

GORANI: Which is what they're saying. Which is what they're saying.

JACKSON: Which is what they're saying. There's something called defamation, Hala. And that means that if you state things that are false,

that are facts but they're false, now it's defamatory, which could, right? Make for another lawsuit and that is by Stormy's team against the president

saying, you know what? You're defaming my client because you're saying it wasn't true. It is true, you know it could be true and therefore, you're

liable. And so that's how the other information which may be out there comes into play.

GORANI: Joey Jackson, as always, thanks so much for your analysis.

JACKSON: Thank you.

GORANI: Really appreciate it.

Still to come tonight, anger from Jewish group's right here in the UK with the leader of the opposition party, Jeremy Corbyn? We have details on

accusations that will not go away for him and his party.


GORANI: There's a political storm here in the UK surrounding the head of the opposition party, Jeremy Corbyn is at the center of a controversy over

anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

On Monday, hundreds of people spilled onto the streets to demonstrate an anger.


GORANI: Jewish groups gathered in protests outside the British houses of parliament.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But never in my lifetime that I witness such anger from our community against a mainstream party.

GORANI: Anger directed at Britain's main opposition, the Labour Party.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But not just disappointed at the last election, actually, we're now furious about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning, Mr. Corbyn.

[15:50:52] GORANI: Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn is at the center of the storm, accused of, time and again, running away from the issue of anti-

Semitism which is plagued its party. It is this mural that has thrust the topic back to the forefront of British politics. Painted on a London

street, it depicts businessmen playing monopoly on the hunched backs of men, a familiar and offensive anti-Semitic trope.

But over the weekend, it emerged to Jeremy Corbyn defended the artist and comments on Facebook in 2012. Jewish leaders were outraged saying in an

open letter to Labour leadership quote, "Again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has cited with anti-Semites rather than Jews. Rightly or wrongly, those who

push this offensive material, regard Jeremy Corbyn as their figure head. Corbyn was forced to apologize saying in a statement, we recognize that

anti-Semitism has occurred in pockets within the Labour Party causing pain and hurt to our Jewish community in the Labour Party and the rest of the

country. I am sincerely sorry for the pain which has been caused."

It's not the first time he's had to do so. The issue of anti-Semitism has dogged Corbyn since he unexpectedly took over the Labour Party leadership

two and a half years ago. He's called Hamas and Hezbollah our friends in the past and was criticized for defending former London mayor, Ken

Livingston who suggested Hitler was a supporter of Zionism.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you're a lying racist.

GORANI: Corbyn himself came under fire in 2016 for apparently equating the state of Israel with ISIS.

JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY: Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government then are

must in France are for those various self-styled Islamic States organization.

GORANI: His latest episode can get more pressure on a party that says it puts equality and tolerance at its heart.


GORANI: More to come this evening including defiant teenagers grabbing the world's attention, demanding tougher gun laws in the U.S. We look back at

the key moments from the weekend's March For Our Lives. Stay with us.


GORANI: No doubt you would have seen some of this next video over the weekend. But it would be remiss of us not to bring you this incredible

moments one more time, because of the sheer scale of it all. I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands of students and school children gathered in

Washington, New York and cities around the U.S. They had quite a simple message about gun violence. Enough is enough. Jason Carroll has the



JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They gathered by the hundreds of thousands, armed by their motivation against gun violence.

They filled streets and cities across America to take part in the March For Our Lives. They marched in Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and New York.

One of the largest crowds convened on the nation's capital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To those people that tell us that teenagers can't do anything, I say that we were the only people that could have made this

movement possible

CARROLL: Some of the most powerful moments came from survivors of last month' shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

DAVID HOGG, PARKLAND SHOOTING SURVIVOR: When people try to suppress your and there are people who stand against you because you are too young, we

say, no more.

CARROLL: Another poignant moment came from Parkland survivor Emma Gonzalez who stood for more than six minutes and said nothing at all.

[15:55:05] EMMA GONZALEZ, ACTIVIST AND ADVOCATE FOR GUN CONTROL: Since the time that I came out here, it has been six minutes and 20 seconds. The

shooter has ceased shooting and will soon abandon his rifle, blend in with the students as they escape and walk free for an hour before arrest. Fight

for your lives before someone else's job.

CARROLL: They march for political or personal reasons or both. In New York City just as thousands gathered near Central Park, Paul McCartney

reflected on what the march meant to him.

PAUL MCCARTNEY, SINGER AND SONGWRITER: One of my best friends was killed in gun violence right around here. So it's important to me.

CARROLL: Our interview conducted on Central Park West, blocks away from where John Lennon was gunned down in 1980. The marchers have their voices

heard today. The real question is, what happens next? Will their passion, their movement lead to federal gun legislation?

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D), NEW YORK: What we have to say to this movement is you have to stay with it. One day is not enough.

CARROLL: Some came to remember Stoneman Douglas, others Sandy Hook elementary or perhaps it was the shooting in Las Vegas or Pulse nightclub

in Orlando. One thing is clear, these marchers believe the time for change is now.

YOLANDA RENEE KING, GRANDDAUGHTER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR: My grandfather had a dream that his four little children will not be judged by the color

of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that enough is enough and that this should be a gun free world, period.

CARROLL: Jason Carroll, CNN, New York.


GORANI: I'll leave you with this sight behind me. Notice something a little off? Take a closer look with these next pictures. The slopes of

Sochi, Russia were left in dazzling white this weekend. In fact, they had an orange tint to them. Images like these flooded social media. So the

question obviously, what caused this? Well, a sand storm that blew across the Sahara Desert in North Africa and swept its way all the way to Russia

mixing with the snow. So there you have it, some orange snow on the slopes.

Thanks for watching, everyone. I'm Hala Gorani. Nice to have you with us this hour. Stay with CNN. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.