Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Giuliani Says Mueller Could End Obstruction Probe By Sept 1; Reports: FBI Looked For Trump-Russia Ties During Campaign; Texas Lieutenant Governor Blames Shooting On Too Many Exits, Entrances; Molten Rock And Haze Forms Laze When Lava Hits Ocean; Reports: More Americans Watched Wedding Than Brits; From Rescued Dogs To First Responders; Clinton Holds Up Russian Hat During Yale Address. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 20, 2018 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[17:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You are in the CNN Newsroom, I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. So glad you're with us this week. And President Trump making a very strong, and very oddly worded demand -- yes, demand today, insisting his Department of Justice investigate the Department of Justice.

And he did it the way he's prefers to make many of his important declaration on Twitter. The President posted this afternoon, quote, I here by demand and will do so officially tomorrow that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI, or the DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for political purposes, and if any such demands of request who are made by people whiting the Obama administration.

The President seems to be referring to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post that the FBI did send someone to meet Trump campaign advisors, looking for connections between the campaign and Russia.

Now the President has suggested it amounts to the FBI spying on his campaign. Let's go straight to the White House and correspondent Ryan Nobles. Ryan, the President's demands, he says he will officially make it tomorrow, what does that mean?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Ana, the simple answer to that question is we just do not know. We have reached out to White House officials looking for some sort of specificity as to exactly what the President is talking about as it relates to this demand, and we haven't heard back.

So we don't know exactly what he's looking for, specially in part, Ana, because there's already an inspector general investigation as a branch of the Department of Justice that's looking into whether or not the FBI inappropriately used surveillance techniques during their investigation into the Trump campaign, which is part of what President Trump is talking about.

That was as information that was released back it March. What we do know, this is part of a pattern of frustration by President Trump, he's been angry about the Mueller investigation since it launch more than a year ago, and it seems as though that frustration has reached a boiling point this weekend, as he continues to talk about the fact that this informant was attempting to gain information about his campaign.

He's described it as someone attempting to infiltrate his campaign, which is not exactly what we understand is the case. This was someone who's attempting to build relationships with members of the Trump team in an attempt to try -- attempt to glean information. So at this point, Ana, the President is very frustrated, and we're going to have to wait, and see exactly what he's hoping to find out tomorrow.

CABRERA: All right, Ryan Nobles at the White House. I also have some breaking news. Right now the President's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani talking about the Robert Mueller led Special Counsel investigation, specifically when he says he expects it, or at least a major part of it to be wrapped up.

On the phone with us now, our Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash. And, Dana, Giuliani says he had been given some kind of a timeline for when this investigation could end?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (via phone): Hi, Ana. I spoke to Rudy Giuliani this afternoon, and here's what he said, he confirmed what he told the New York Times, that Robert Mueller had indicated that the investigation could be wrapped up by September 1st.

However, what Giuliani also told me is that conversation happened about a month ago, and that it was in the context of a negotiation about the President doing an interview. Meaning, the conversation was more along the lines of -- according to Giuliani, more along the lines of Mueller saying, you know, we could wrap this up by September 1st if the President talks to us.

That was the context of it. And when I say this, again, this is, this President's lawyer speaking, so this is about the President's part in the investigation, there's no indication according to Giuliani that Mueller meant that he could wrap the entire investigation up.

I mean, just look at the situation with Paul Manafort, just for example, that's going to go on, there's no question, way longer than September. So that's the conversation he said he had.

He also, Ana, Giuliani told me that because this is a conversation that happened a month ago, that timeline could have changed. So, you know, a lot has changed, and a lot has been going on, and has been going on for the past month.

CABRERA: So it sounds like it wasn't a definitive timeline by any means, and according to the New York Times, the timeline was pertaining to the obstruction of justice portion of Robert Mueller's probe, is that your understanding as well?

BASH: It could be. It could be. Because, look, it's not a secret that the obstruction of justice question has been something that Robert Mueller is looking into, in addition to the underlying reason that the Special Counsel was appointed in the first place, which is questions about whether there was collusion -- any collusion, between Russians, and anybody in the Trump campaign orbit.

So presumably, it is those two things. At least the President's potential part in questioning the President about those that Mueller was suggesting that he could wrap up. This is all according to Giuliani.

[17:05:00] And remember, the key context here is, you know, this is how negotiations go, and it seems like this was a negotiating tactic a month ago from Robert Mueller as they try to get the President, and his attorneys to agree to some sort of interview.

CABRERA: Obviously, that would be appealing to them to know that this investigation could be wrapped up sooner since that's been the goal from day of this administration of President Trump and his legal team.

Thank you, Dana Bash, for your reporting. Lots to discuss now with our next guest, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California. He serves on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thank you for being here. First, do you believe Rudy Giuliani that Mueller actually gave him a deadline, September 1st, for wrapping up this investigation into obstruction?

CONG. TED LIEU (D), CALIFORNIA: I do not, Ana. We know that Rudy Giuliani makes stuff up, and then he has to correct it later. It would surprise if Robert Mueller could promise date certain by which this investigation will conclude.

This is a very complicated investigation with lots of open inquiries, so I don't think it would wrap up by September, and if we remember, the former White House attorney for Donald Trump also kept saying, oh, this investigation is going to keep wrapping up, and it still hasn't.

CABRERA: Does it make some sense tough that he may have said, this could wrap up by this deadline perhaps, if you are willing to have the President come, and talk with us?

LIEU: It's possible, but it would also depend on what the President would say, because with every new investigation, it could open up new leads. I'm a former prosecutor, and it's nearly impossible to say when an investigation may or may not conclude because you're constantly looking for new evidence, and that could open up new avenues for inquiry.

CABRERA: Aldo important to note according to the New York Times, I'm clear when Dana talked to Giuliani, that this again was just pertaining to the obstruction of justice portion of Robert Mueller's probe, not necessarily the overall election meddling investigation into Russia, and whether there was any sort of collusion, or conspiracy with the Trump campaign, is that an important distinction to you?

LIEU: I'm glad you brought that up because the President's Tweets today could suggest he wants to obstruct justice again. If he's trying to influence a federal investigation against him by saying we now need to investigate that investigation, depending on how he does it, that could be obstruction of justice. He needs to let the investigation against him proceed without any political interference.

CABRERA: Meantime, the President also saying he's going to officially make a demand tomorrow for the FBI to investigate the DOJ, or I guess the DOJ to investigate the DOJ regarding an allege informant, and whether that person was used for political purposes during the campaign. Does he have the power to demand this kind of investigation?

LIEU: He can certainly ask, and I don't have any problem with that inquiry, because it's going to show that the FBI started this operation as a counter intelligence operation. They were trying to protect the Trump campaign against Russia and influenced by foreign power.

And it turns out that it morphed into a criminal investigation because there were Trump campaign officials that engage with the Russians in inappropriate ways. Two of them that informant allegedly spoke to George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn have already pledge guilty.

CABRERA: So you actually welcome this kind of an investigation, you don't see it as a politically motivated information?

LIEU: I think what the President wants to do is politically motivated, but I think it's very easy for the Department of Justice to simply respond back with a letter, saying, yes, the FBI did have an informant because that a counterintelligence operation to prevent Russian influence into election meddling.

And I don't think it's that big of a deal because it's very clear what happened here, operation cross fire hurricane was a counterintelligence operation. No one disputes that the FBI had legitimate reasons to do that, and now we see that some people have pled guilty because of that investigation.

CABRERA: So you say the DOJ could respond that way, do you think that's how they will respond?

LIEU: They could either choose to ignore their request, or they could respond quietly by simply writing a letter back to the White House by saying, look, this was a counter intelligence investigation. We had legitimate reasons for doing this, and oh, by the way, two of your campaign officials already have pled guilty because they acted inappropriately with the Russians.

CABRERA: What if the Department of Justice doesn't comply? What if they push back on this President? What do you think he'll do?

LIEU: I have learned not to predict the President of the United States. I do know that what he has done this morning with his six or seven tweets about the Special Counsel investigation, it shows to me that he is scared.

I know that defendants when they don't have the evidence, when they are scared, they put law enforcement on trial, that's what he's trying to do in his smearing of FBI, and the Department of Justice is harming our nation, and it just got to stop.

CABRERA: Congressman, are you confident the Obama administration did not order the FBI or Department of Justice to infiltrate, or surveil the Trump campaign in 2016?

[17:10:00] LIEU: Well, this happened in 2016, so this would -- this would have been Obama officials, and the FBI under the Obama administration. So, yes, it happened during the Obama administration, but this was a counterintelligence operation to try to prevent influence for foreign power.

And even see running to 2017 where Sally Yates coming to the White House, trying to protect the President and his administration for Michael Flynn, who is lying to FBI agents.

So you see the Department of Justice started this out as an operation to protect the legitimacy of the administration, and of the 2016 elections. They only morphed into a criminal investigation because they saw wrong doing by officials of the Trump campaign.

CABRERA: What do you think set the President off today?

LIEU: I think it was the stories he saw in the media, reporting there was a second meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and some emissaries of foreign powers, including the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, suggesting that they wanted to help the Trump campaign in the 2016 elections, I think that's something that caused them to get mad.

CABRERA: Congressman Ted Lieu of California, thank you.

LIEU: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: Let's bring in our panel for more analysis, joining us now, Washington Correspondent for New York Magazine, Olivia Nuzzi, CNN Legal Analyst and former prosecutor, Michael Zeldin, who has worked closely with Robert Mueller, and CNN National Security Analyst, and former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem. Michael, what's your take on this latest tweet from the President saying he demands the DOJ investigate the FBI?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So he is the chief executive office of the executive branch. He is constitutionally entitled to ask the FBI, and the Department of Justice to inquire of something that he thinks is worthy of inquiry. It's not normal.

Normally, DOJ and White House communication rules sort of prohibit this sort of behavior, but it's not impermissible constitutionally. I think the thing should be, though, if the FBI, and the DOJ are going to follow his demand, and open an investigation that that should be last, you know, sort of aspect of it that he has any involvement in.

They then have to go about their business uninterfered with, or with the appearance of uninterfered with by the White House, and let them reach their conclusion. So he can do it, Ana.

He probably should have gone to his White House counsel, and the White House counsel should have gone to Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, and Attorney General Sessions, or Rod Rosenstein in the FBI -- in the Justice Department.

And that should have been the way, but, you know, it's his -- it's his constitutional prerogative as long as he steps back now, and doesn't interfere with it on a day-to-day basis.

CABRERA: What stands out are those names you just listed, are they all Republicans, they are the DOJ, they are the leaders of the FBI that the President is attacking essentially. Juliette, how do you see the President's tweets today?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I'm going to differ to Michael about sort of the process, and that he is allowed to do this. But I think to be -- I think we cannot ignore what's animating the President at this stage, I guess I would put it that way, and was animating his request for this.

So we have to take a step back, and look at this week in terms of counterintelligence and national security. The President and his proxies essentially were successful in outing a confidential informant who was helping in a criminal investigation.

There's been reporting about not just the Russia contacts, but of course a Saudi, and UAE, and Donald trump Jr. appears to be sort of key player in a lot of this. So while the President may have that prerogative, it sort of requires us -- to think that it's benign, requires us to ignore the national security, and counterintelligence implications.

I will add one thing, I kind of hope they do do it. I mean, in one sense, because I think what it will show is that the FBI actually had legitimate reasons to have a counterintelligence investigation against the very person who's asking them to review this investigation, Donald Trump. So in some ways, maybe it would be smart for the Department of Justice to call the bluff.

CABRERA: Olivia, the President has tweeted eight times today about the Russia investigation, or at least this weekend, and the FBI, and the DOJ, we just heard from Juliette, mentioning some of the reporting that came out this week from The Washington Post, and the New York Times.

We have also been following the GOP leaders, particularly Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Community -- Committee I should say, who has been sort of egging on this same sort of massage all along, who do you think is influencing who here?

OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Well, look, I mean, we know from the Washington Post reporting today that the President has spent most of this weekend on the phone with Rudy Giuliani. I think they spoke Friday or Saturday night, and they spoke this morning pretty early. [17:15:03] And I think it's pretty clear that he's being influenced heavily by Rudy Giuliani who is his friend. He's also being influenced, of course, by Fox News, and he's in sort of this feedback loop where he is I think hearing what he wants to hear.

And remember, we just had the anniversary of this investigation, and I think in the context of what Juliette is talking about, all of these revelations this week, with the various investigations, I think he's very frustrated that this is defining his presidency.

I mean we are more than a year into this new administration, and all that we are talking about is the Mueller probe, and the other investigations related to it, and I think it's very frustrated for him. And I think that really explains why, you know, he just won't let it go.

And why Rudy Giuliani, much like Ty Cobb, other people on the president's legal team are telling him that it might be wrapped up by September. I mean, it's supposed to be wrapped up according to Ty Cobb in four to six weeks when he said that back in January. So he really just wants to look as though he is fighting back, and that's what this is about.

CABRERA: Michael, does it make sense to you that Robert Mueller would have told Giuliani what he says he was told?

ZELDIN: No. It doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me when Giuliani said that Mueller told him that a sitting President can't be indicted. I don't believe Mueller said that. I believe that more likely Mueller said we follow DOJ guidelines, and then they can extrapolate from that, what that means.

I don't believe that Mueller said that this will be wrapped up by September 1st, the obstruction part of it. I just don't see that as being normal, you know, for Bob Mueller. It may well be that they had a communication a month ago.

You know, he told the New York Times two weeks ago, he told Dana Bash a month ago, so I'm not sure what the timeline is here, but it would take him at his most recent word to Dana.

That a month ago, you know, a few days after he was hired, that they had a meeting as he said then with Mueller to talk about topics, and so maybe this came up in the context of that, but as a definitive statement from Mueller that we intent to do this if you do that? I just -- I don't credit it. I just don't credit it at all.

CABRERA: Michael, could the tweets that he sent out today actually play into the obstruction of justice investigation if the President is essentially saying, you need to investigate somebody who is investigating my campaign?

ZELDIN: I don't think so, I mean, I think he is asking the FBI and the Department of Justice to see whether there was any impropriety in the use of the informant, in the same way that he asked the FBI, and the DOJ to inquire as to whether there was impropriety in the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

I don't think those are acts of obstruction. You know, maybe he shouldn't be asking those things, and the FBI and the DOJ should be doing that of their own initiative.

But I don't see those as obstructionist acts, I just think they are acts of a President who's frustrated by the continuation of this investigation, and he's sort of reaching out in various ways.

CABRERA: Juliette, I want to ask you a little bit more about this other story. The President appears to be referencing today that Donald Trump Jr. the met with a (Inaudible) and offering campaign help.

This was again at Trump Tower just a few months before the 2016 election. You brought it up earlier. The paper says Mueller is looking into that meeting as well. Do you put this meeting on the same level of importance as the Russia-Trump Tower meeting?

KAYYEM: Yes. And here is the reason why. It now appears in two instances that the Trump campaign was receptive to foreign help and assistance in American domestic Democratic process, against the law on the foreign side, depending on the interactions that it's against the law here.

What else -- we have to remember that there's a biggest context here which is foreign countries appear to have known that the Trump -- that Donald Trump, his son, and the Trump campaign were receptive to being bought may be a little bit strong, but you know, to accepting their help in winning. So what does that mean?

It means not democratic government, like we saw Saudi Arabia and Russia, that are more corrupt, that don't have to be responsible to democracies are getting with the Trump White House, and democratic western democracies that have to be receptive, that tend to be less corrupt like our allies, the U.K., France and Germany are not.

It also goes to a key national security question that's out there, you're seeing now being reported on. Why so early on in the Trump campaign where they're so willing to throw Qatar under the bus in its fights with Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

So to me, this meeting is essential, because just like the Russia meeting it ties directly to foreign policy, national security, and money.

[17:20:03] Because if money was exchanged, like all these other things that we're seeing where the Trumps seem to be getting richer from foreign governments, this may be another piece of evidence.

CABRERA: Olivia, I owe you a question for towards next time. Thank you all for joining us, Olivia Nuzzi, Michael Zeldin, and Juliette Kayyem, I really appreciate it.

Coming up, as victims of a Texas school shooting are laid to rest today, one mother says she believes daughter was targeted by the gunman. Details ahead. And we have live pictures from Hawaii where new fissures are forming rivers of lava, a live report coming up.

[17:25:03] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Erica Hill, live in Santa Fe, Texas. A community grieving, and pulling together as they're grappling with what happened here behind me on Friday, 10 lives lost in this high school.

Lots of hugs, and lots of tears here today in Santa Fe. AS folks struggle to understand how so many young lives could be taken. I want to get to CNN's Polo Sandoval who was there as several churches came together today for a service to honor the eight student and two teachers who were killed on Friday. And we heard a lot of emotion coming out of that service understandably, Polo.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Erica. Certainly, it has been an emotional day for Sunday service not far from where the shooting took place, and earlier today in nearby Houston, the first of the funerals being held at least in the United States, Sabika Sheikh, if you recall, she is a 17-year-old foreign exchange service, who traveled here from Pakistan, to continue with her high school education.

Instead, now, she is among those 10 people who were shot and killed on that Friday morning when that gunman began to fire inside Santa Fe High School. Today, the first goodbye for the friends in the United States of Sabika, they recently said their final goodbyes before her body was then flown to Pakistan where her family will eventually lay to her to rest.

That ceremony -- that service rather that was held in Houston, quite power line, quite emotional, especially as you hear from one of the speakers at the event, M. K. Khan, the President of the Islamic Society of the Greater Houston area, using this opportunity to speak to young Texans, calling them to follow in the footsteps of the Parkland, Florida students -- a group of students who dealt with a tragedy of their own.

HILL: Polo Sandoval joining us live there from Santa Fe. Polo, thank you. There have been a number of questions, not just about the victims, but about the alleged suspect here, a 17-year-old who's being held in solitary confinement at a local jail.

Texas politicians also now floated suggestion on how to beef security at schools in the state, and how to better protect those students, teacher, and staffs as well. Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick spoke with CNN's Jake Tapper about that earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. GOV. DAN PATRICK (R), TEXAS: We need to get down to one or two entrances into our schools. You have the necessary exits for fire, of course, but we have to follow our students into our schools so we could put eyes on them.

This young man showed up with a trench coat, which he wore often, I have learned, and he had a gun under it, and he came through one of the entrances undetected. You know, the Israelis have three focuses on security, and that is to deter, detect, and deny. And we have too many people who can get on our school campuses with guns who are not deterred.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So would this be more effective in terms of security? With us now, James Gagliano, retired FBI supervisory special agent, and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst. So, James, I mean, look at this. This is an idea that the Lieutenant Governor was speaking about it earlier as Friday. He got to push back.

He also found a lot of support for that idea, that we limit the ways people can get into schools, not the way that they can get out. Keep those fire exits there, but to look at it more as the movie theater. You go in one door, but you've got a lot of ways to get out, does that create a safer environment?

JAMES GAGLIANO, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: These are complex issues, trying to figure out ways to keep children and all of our citizens safe. So there's not one antidote, there's no panacea here.

Are some of the things he brought up is good? Yes, absolutely. Single point entry is very important. So you can screen people coming in. You've obviously got the issues you just raise there. It would make sure that people can get out if something happens, if there is fire, something like that.

But that is something to do. Keep in mind as we look at hardening targets, and schools being of them, obviously, of recent, bad guys are just like water, they're always going to take the path of least resistance. So if you harden a target, if this school is better prepared, better protected, that's going to be deterrent, so I think that's absolutely one piece of the puzzle.

HILL: And there's also the talk about the fact that apparently a gun was concealed under this trench coat, that brings up he question of metal detectors, it brings up the question of dress codes. How important are those from we're looking at, because there are calls across the country understandably for schools to be a safe place.

GAGLIANO: A fair conversation. Again, it's that whole argument about civil liberties versus keeping us safe, and making it a police state. If you want to treat this like parochial schools, and having students, you know, come to school with a tucked in shirts, so you can see their belt line, that's fair.

That's part of this discussion. I think there will be some resistance that we don't want to take away all of our civil liberties. We don't want to turn things into a police state, but unfortunately, we have got to look, and do something different.

HILL: There also had been a discussion, one that you and I have talked about a number of times, especially in the wake of Parkland of whether or not to arm teachers and staff. You know, according to the Houston chronicle, I believe it's one in seven districts in Texas allows teachers and some staff to carry on campus.

[17:30:00] Where are you following that debate? That can be a very heated debated in, and off itself. But it does bring up practical questions about how does that work, so if you are carrying a gun, and you're in a classroom every day, is it locked in a box?

If it's locked in a box, can you get it in the event of an emergency? If it's on your person -- If it's on your person, could a student or another staff member perhaps over power you, and wrestle it away from you, do you believe those issues are being dealt with in this discussion?

GAGLIANO: I'm not a nuanced guy, but I'm going to give you a nuanced answer to that. And here is the nuanced answer. The New York Police Department did a study I believe back in 2009, 2010, and found out during adversarial confrontations between bad buys and police officers, the average trained police officer was able to hit the target in those circumstances, one out of five times, 20 percent of the time or less.

Now, you're going to arm a teacher, who's got a full-time job teaching our students, and then say, but you've got to be as efficient as a police officer when that's their job. That's nonsensical.

Having said that, here's my caveat, this is the nuance, I'm a professor at St. Johns. I'm also able to carry a concealed weapon, because I'm a retired law enforcement officer, but I can't take it on to St. Johns campus, because it a gun free campus.

Would in certain situations, military veterans that meet certainly testing standards as far as proficiency, certain law enforcement retirees, that are now teachers, in limited stations, is that something good? I say yes.

I say it's something we should look at, and could be possibly a way to address this. You're not going to be able to arm every teacher, nor should we want to, because I just gave those statistics.

HILL: Right.

GAGLIANO: But I think in limitedness is you should do it.

HILL: One last quick question for you in terms of the investigation. So we had heard earlier that the FBI was leading the investigation, and a little bit of confusion now. We're not getting a lot of information, whether it's from federal officials, or local officials, what does that tell you is happening then behind the scenes?

GAGLIANO: From the federal side, I thought the one way the FBI would be able to take control of this situation is it had been deemed to be terrorism. And we don't have that yet because we don't know the motivation. There's been nothing about a political ideology, or a social justice ideology.

So, we can't define this terrorism, which would allow the FBI to step in. The second way that this could have happened -- the second way, would have been an instance where we call it CBNRE, which is chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear explosives.

If there had been chemicals in some of those devices that we know were either decoys, or inert, or just clumsy, we put together with no explosives, that's going to make it difficult.

Because it can be determined, it was a weapon of mass destruction, which those things are, the feds could take over it then. So, yes, the FBI might be working in concert with the police, the local police, and the state police here as far as evidence response team work, and helping out in the investigation, but I don't see where the (Inaudible), we haven't heard them make any announcements, and that's very different.

HILL: Yes, it certainly is. All right, James, always appreciate your insight. Thank you.

GAGLIANO: Thank, Erica.

HILL: Ana, we'll send it back to you.

CABRERA: All right, Erica and James, thank you both. I want to take you all now to Hawaii. We have live pictures, where lava is bubbling from the ground, creating rivers of molten rock flowing into the ocean, more details in a live report next.

[17:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: A staggering sight and sound of volcanic bombs exploding as Hawaii's Kilauea Volcano hurls molten rock high into the air, and law. It's hot lava, and the sulfur dioxide weren't enough, Hawaiians on the bog island are now facing another volcano threat called laze.

Laze forms of lava reaches the ocean sending hydrochloric acid, and fine volcanic glass particle high into the air. Those laze is a real health hazard, threatening lung damage, and skin, and eye irritation. And officials are warning people near the coast that laze can also be deadly.

Two people died from exposure to it back in 2000. Let's bring in our Stephanie Elam live from Pahoa. Stephanie, Hawaii is known worldwide for its beaches, how are they going to keep people away from the coast with this new laze threat?

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's true, Ana. Hawaii is also known for volcanoes. And that is very much how it looks along the coast here. It is much more rocky and craggy in a lot of the parts over here on this side of the island.

What I do know though is because people are likely to try to get out there, and take a look at what that looks like with those two heads of lava that flow down, came together as one, and then broke again into the heads that went into ocean overnight.

That lava hitting the ocean, and in that area, the U.S. coast guard is saying they're keeping it clear in a 900-foot, 360-degree radius to keep people away from getting too close to that lava because of the dangers that you just talked about.

Also the sulfur dioxide level is up three times today versus yesterday. Let me show you what you can see out here right now where we are. It's raining here, but that has nothing to do with stopping the erupting lava that you can see in this picture.

That's probably about bigger than less than a mile away from where we are right now. And this whole area, when we look down past it, you can see that it's just a sea of black lava, this is part of what was cascading down slope, and head into the ocean.

You may hear in the background behind me, some rumbling, and that's because of a fissure about a mile away in the other direction, and it is still spewing out those volcanic gases, and it is sounding -- sometimes it sounds a bit like a jet taking off right next to you.

[17:40:03] And other times it sounds like a cannon. Now we're standing back there, and I see at one point where this strength of the volcanic gas that's coming out of the earth is so strong, it shot particles, I would say, several hundred feet into the sky.

There is a house back there, and it has had some glass and windows broken because of the concussions. That's how strong it is. That has come sometimes from that fissure there. So this is what they're dealing with here. They're asking people to be vigilant, and they say to get out -- to get out, Ana.

CABRERA: Great reporting. Stephanie Elam, thank you for being there for us. The world is still buzzing over the royal wedding. Some are still celebrating today with a tea party at Windsor. Plus, we are still learning what Prince Harry apparently said about the dress, and what's next for the couple, that's right after a quick break.

[17:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Welcome back. Let's take a look at the latest news now swirling about the royal newlyweds Harry and Meghan. That flower bouquet that Meghan carried as she transform from American commoner into Britain's Duchess of Sussex.

We sent to Westminster Abbey today right now, were as some of the brave and the unknown warrior, and we're hearing they're first dance was to Whitney Houston's, I Want To Dance With Somebody.

We also have some preliminary T.V. ratings. Get this, nearly 18 million watched the royal wedding in Britain. Another 22.5 million watched here in the U.S.

I want to turn to CNN Media Analyst Bill Carter talk more about the worldwide fascination over this royal wedding between the U.S. and Britain. Nearly, 40 million people watched. What do you think that's about?

BILL CARTER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Well, there's a lot going on here. I mean, there's obviously all the usual, you know, fairy tale stuff that attracts some people. It also turns off some people. But this wedding had a little more going on.

There were some substance there that of this -- other weddings don't have. Obviously, you had the interracial aspect of it. You had an American bride, which brings in more American viewers of course. And the wedding itself was quite looming to our people. I mean, it was -- the choir, and the bishop's speech, there was more going on there, and I think it really captivated people.

CABRERA: I'm glad you brought the bishop's speech because according to Britain's Guardian Newspaper, some 3.4 million tweets were sent during the ceremony regarding his speech. That's when the interest really peaked in fact on social media where he quoted the reverend Martin Luther King, and he talked about the power of love.

CARTER: Yes.

CABRERA: What was it that you think struck a cord?

CARTER: I think it was genuine. I think his speaking style, certainly, for Americans really connect. I think there are people in Britain who thought it was little too informal. But I think he was speaking from the heart. It wasn't just, you know, a lot of times you hear a homily at a church service, and you don't get a sense that he doesn't really know the people.

It's like that he's really touch -- he could touch these people, the groom and the bride. And I think because we had a girl with some, you know, racial aspects to this wedding, it really was significant. I mean, you know, this was a wedding unlike any other that the royals have ever been involved in. And it really was a great show besides everything else. It's fantastic television I think.

CABRERA: Yes, and the music...

CARTER: And the choir singing Stand By Me was just super. It was really super.

CABRERA: That was my favorite.

CARTER: I should note something else. I think there is something else going on here. Because in America, we have been in a state of real high anxiety in this country for, you know, two and a half years. And we just had this horrific school shooting again.

And I do think a lot of people were like, I got to escape. I got to be something else. And this was a moving escape. It wasn't just all -- just looking at, you know, a bride, and a groom, and a fairy tale romance, or whatever. There was something going on there. And it moved people for that reason.

And they really wanted to be moved. I think they wanted to feel something after this incredible period of time where I think people are worried about what's going on in our country.

CABRERA: Yes. CARTER: And what's going on internationally, and we can't even protect our school children. I mean it's an awful a lot of serious stuff going on, and I think this was welcome for a lot of reason.

CABRERA: No doubt about it. Hopefully, people are moved to make change to have a positive come...

CARTER: Yes, I think so. Be nice.

CABRERA: ... from all of this. Thank you so much Bill Carter for giving us your take, we appreciate it. We'll be right back. But first, when disaster strikes time is of the essence to find survivors, one woman's organization transforms shelter dogs into speedy first responders, and that's today's Impact Your World.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

EMILY HODGES, K-9 TRAINER, SEARCH DOG FOUNDATION: We don't have anything that can cover a 10,000 square foot area of rubble as fast as a dog can.

WILMA MELVILLE, FOUNDER, SEARCH DOG FOUNDATION: The Search Dog Foundation have responded to approximately 168 disasters, the World Trade Center, the major hurricanes, Katrina, Harvey, and Irma.

WADE HAILER, K-9 SPECIALIST, LONG BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT: My K-9 is Rex. The biggest obstacle we faced recently was the Montecito mudslides. He was having to dolphin through the mud to get actually to where we were at. What a good boy.

MELVILLE: As a FEMA certified team, we were asked to go to the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995. The nation had approximately 15 of these dog and handler. The country now has approximately 275. The Search Dog Foundation not only uses rescued dogs from shelters, but trains that dog at no cost.

HODGES: In training we have to set up the scenarios as real life as possible. That bark is what the dog's use to communicate to their handlers that they have located live human scent.

[17:50:00] A lot of the dogs that come into our program were slated for euthanasia. Essentially we're saving these dogs lives to save peoples' lives.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: President Trump took on his 2016 political rival on Twitter again today, but this time Hillary Clinton pushed back in a rather unique way. Clinton was the featured speaker at Yale's senior class day ceremony today. It's a tradition for Yale students to dawn crazy hats at their annual graduate's events.

[17:55:02] So Clinton pulled out a furry Russian hat in the middle of her speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Now I see looking out at you that you are following the tradition of over-the- top hats. So I brought a hat, too -- a Russian hat.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Right? Look, I mean, if you can't beat them, join them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, and it's where she met her husband, former President Bill Clinton. I want to take you to Hawaii now. Take a look at these images. Lava is bubbling from the ground, creating rivers of molten rock flowing into the ocean creating even more hazards. More details coming up in a live report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)