Return to Transcripts main page
HALA GORANI TONIGHT
How Trump Voters Feel About Helsinki Summit; After Bipartisan Backlash, Trump Says He Misspoke On Russia; Lawmakers Call For Subpoena Of Trump's Translator; U.S. Prosecutors: Butina Has Ties To Russian Intel; Boris Johnson: It Is Not Too Late To Save Brexit; Theresa May Survives Key Vote On Customs Union; Boy Rescued From Thai Cave Speak To Media. Aired 3- 4p ET
Aired July 18, 2018 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SANDERS: John (ph), go ahead.
QUESTION: You're not going to answer me.
SANDERS: John (ph), go ahead.
QUESTION: That's all right. Fine.
QUESTION: Thank you, Sarah. I wanted to ask you about the immediate reaction to the president's comments that he made at that joint press
conference in Helsinki. It was immediate. Every cable channel -- Fox, NBC, CNN, reacted immediately to the suggestion the president made that he did
not believe that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election. I got my inbox inundated with emails from Republican members of Congress, with
their reation, immediately, and 24 hours -- it took 24 hours for the president to correct the record. Why did it take so long for the president
to clarify the comments that he made at that press conference?
SANDERS: Look, the president put out an initial tweet after boarding Air Force One that clarified his comments on the intelligence community. He
wanted to make sure that was clear, and at the very first chance he had in a public setting the following day, he clarified his comments. And I don't
think that it was that long for that to be the very first public appearance that he had, following arriving back to the United States.
QUESTION: It was 24 hours, actually. It -- it -- it's a pretty long time, and it was out there for quite a bit.
SANDERS: It wasn't actually 24 hours before he responded at all. Again, he put out an initial tweet from Air Force One.
QUESTION: (inaudible) comment on this to clarify his remarks to change the "would" to "wouldn't," or the "wouldn't" to "would," and I think that, you
know, a lot of people would -- would argue that there was ample time for the president. He tweets all the time from Air Force One.
SANDERS: And he tweeted that night.
QUESTION: ... for him to -- to put out a -- a statement which clarified what he meant to say during the joint news conference, and he didn't do
that. Why -- what -- what took so long, is my question?
SANDERS: Once he reviewed the transcript, he wanted to publicly -- he wanted to publicly address the clarification, and which he did.
QUESTION: There are currently efforts within Congress to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Is that something that the White House
would support, for lack of cooperation in turning over documents to Congress?
SANDERS: The president's made clear, he'd like all documents to be turned over, but we're continuing to work with our Department of Justice. I don't
have anything further on that.
Jim (ph)? Jim (ph), go ahead.
QUESTION: To follow up on that, would the White House denounce that effort then? Do they have the -- do they have confidence within the deputy
SANDERS: The president would like to see the documents turned over. When the president no longer has confidence in someone, his administration will
let you know.
QUESTION: Sarah, on the Friday of the press conference with Prime Minister May, I asked the president as he was leaving whether or not he would tell
Vladimir Putin to stay out of U.S. elections. As he was leaving with the prime minister, he said yes. Did the president tell Vladimir Putin at their
summit in Helsinki to stay out of U.S. elections?
SANDERS: Certainly, the president, as both he and President Putin said, discussed election meddling. I think we've made very clear what our
position is on that front.
QUESTION: I understand you're saying that they discussed election meddling, but did the president of the United States tell the president of Russia to
stay out of U.S. elections? Did that occur?
SANDERS: The president has -- the president has made clear to Vladimir Putin that he should stay out of U.S. elections.
Sorry, I'm going to keep moving. April (ph), go ahead. Sorry, Jim (ph), I'm going to take a couple last questions.
QUESTION: Was there a recording made of their one-on-one meeting? Does that exist?
SANDERS: I'm not aware of one. I'm not aware of one.
QUESTION: So Sarah, since you keep saying that the president is very concerned about the election process
[15:03:32] KATE BOLDUAN: All right you've been listening to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders getting a lot of tough questions today
regarding that's kind of - kind of back to beginning, moving forward and back again to - from the mess in Helsinki to clarification yesterday to
further clarification required today. The panel is here. We've been watching it together.
Let's get to some of the things that we've learning today. First and foremost, the latest clarification that was required, Kaitlin, is that,
President Trump, today, was asked if Russia is still targeting the United States. He's - he said no, especially to Vega (ph), the reporter who
asked, if he looked directly at me and said, "No, the White House says that's not what he said." How much to do believe the White House on this?
CAITLIN HUEY-BURNS, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, having been in those kind of situations with the president before, I have noticed that he
does look around the room to reporters, and he does listen to kind of the questions that are being asked.
I wasn't in the room today, so I can't speak to exactly that, but you know, the president does have a credibility issue, of course, on this specific
topic, given the way in which he had to respond yesterday, under public pressure from not only democrats but many, many republicans.
So, heading into this, at the very least, they should have been on guard about this. He should have been extra careful. And the fact that this is
even happening right now, I think, speaks to the way in which the president, you know, just wants to move on from this and doesn't really
care about the consequences.
BOLDUAN: Sarah Sanders seems to be showing fatigue in trying to - in being - in having to clarify things that the president does say. On another
topic, though, Peter, and this was brought up, and I think this is going to be discussed much more.
It came up in the press conference in Helsinki, when the president talked about an interesting idea, an incredible offer that came from Vladimir
Putin, which was this concept of allowing Bob Mueller and investigators to go to Russia to conduct interviews of Russians that have been, now, charged
In return for Russian investigators to come to the United States to interview and interrogate Americans on American soil. She - Sarah Sanders
essentially just said it was discussed, it was offered, and the United States made no commitment, but that's a wild proposition, that they even
discussed it in public.
PETER BEINART, SENIOR COLUMIST, THE FORWARD: Yes, you know, sometimes, you know, I play this game in my head where I imagine Barrack Obama saying some
of these kind of things, and you know - and one's head (ph) explodes, if you try to think about how republicans might be responding if Barrack Obama
had suggested that it was an ancient idea to basically bring Russian investigators in the United States to - to - to interview our intelligence
What's so strange about the Trump presidency is that, so often, what comes out of Trump's mouth doesn't really bear any relationship with what's
actually going on in the government. But it's like we have these two presidencies. We have the actual official government going through its
business, and then we have Trump, just saying whatever the heck has kind of come into his mouth.
So I don't think the actual permanent government is actually going to entertain that idea at all, I would image. You know, Pompeo, Bolton,
Kelly, but you know, Trump just says these things, through a position of basically, complete ignorance and without really understanding the basic
perimeters that generally guide the way America views the world.
BOLDUAN: Steve, do you think, honestly, from almost every republican who's spoke out after Helsinki said, if they're being charitable, it was a mess.
If they were being in their republicans (ph) who were much more critical, calling it a disgrace in how he was discussed. Then, the attempted
clarification, yesterday, where are you today on this?
STEVE ROGERS, DONALD J. TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISORY BOARD: Kate, I've got to tell you. I agree there's been a lot of hysteria, unnecessary hysteria, on
both sides, and I very, very rarely agree with President Obama, but on one thing, I do agree with him. In 2016, President Obama faced the same
questions about Russian Meddling.
He was asked, "Why did you not call out Russia on the public stage?" And you know what he said and he correctly said, "I'm here to reset our
relations with Russia. I'm not here to make things worse." President Trump did the same thing. He was there to thaw the ice with Russia. And
both, Barrack Obama and President Trump, on this issue, knew that 20 years, 10 years, 15 years from now -
BOLDUAN: So you just ruined every other republican who's spoken out, who's said that if you're going to put America first and if you're going to be
strong in the face of foreign aggression, he didn't do that.
ROGERS: No. So, I disagree with them because first of all, they don't know all the facts and second of all -
BOLDUAN: Well, do you know all the facts? I mean, what do you mean?
ROGERS: Well - well - well, what I know is this, is that the president has put America first. He's been very tough on Russia. He went to NATO, and
contrary to what the narrative that many politicians are saying, he was looking for their fare share of bearing of burden.
I woke up after the summit, and all these issues, my quality of life is still good. The economy's good. No Russian flags are flying anywhere in
the United States. So what's all the -
BOLDUAN: If that's your measure of things -
ROGERS: My measure of things, Kate - my measure of things is that, everyone, both sides, have that calming down (ph), and let's get all of the
facts before we draw conclusions.
BOLDUAN: I - I don't know where - I'm not hysterical -
ROGERS: You're not, you're not.
BOLDUAN: I'm just asking some questions. Doug, when it comes to the clarification, republicans were furious. Hysterical, maybe not, furious,
when all of this went down. Clarification, when Donald Trump said it was two letters and an apostrophe that he got wrong. Despite everything else
he said in that press conference, there was a lot more (ph).
Republicans seem to think that is enough. So, all of the stuff that they threw out there from Capital Hill, saying, we can make a stand, we can do
this, we can do that, is it going to go anywhere?
DOUG HEYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. Ultimately, republican members are - you know, what they respond to publically and what they say
privately, as we know, are two very different things. Ultimately, it's going to be what they hear from their voters.
If their voters react to what they saw, not just in Helsinki but throughout this trip, and let's be clear, this trip was a disaster before Donald Trump
went to Helsinki. He insulted the prime minister of England. He insulted the queen of England. He's threatened NATO and its very existence. Even
after that, he threatened Montenegro and the entire tenants (ph) of NATO.
So what happened in Helsinki, as awful as it was, this was already an embarrassment to Americans. It's a terrible message to the rest of the
world and a great message of Vladimir Putin, and maybe Nigel Farage, and that's it. So - so we had that going on anyways. Does that seep into the
mind of the republican voter. That's what we don't know yet, and we'll found that out, as we see more polling, as we see the effects of this, but
until then, we'll see more strongly worded statements from republicans and not much else.
BOLDUAN: One thing we still don't know and we will still wait to hear, because only Russia's talking about it, is what exactly was agreed to, yes
or nothing, in that one-on-one with Vladimir. So standby to standby on that (ph). That's the state of America tonight. This is day 545 of
President Trump's administration, and tonight, my friends, we're adding another countdown to the list.
This marks three days until the final daily version of "State of America." We are taking on a new role here at CNN, a weekly show. A Friday night
version of "State of America" will begin in September. Same fun, same fights, different time, and in a weekly dose. We'll see you back here
tomorrow. I'm Kate Bolduan, in New York. My colleague, Hala Gorani takes over now.
HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Kate. We continue covering the story. Donald Trump's Helsinki headache is not going
away. More than 48 hours after his extraordinary and alarming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Now the U.S. president spoke briefly earlier, and instead of changing the narrative decisively, he again seemed to contradict American intelligence
when asked if Russia is still targeting the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is Russia still targeting the U.S., Mr. President?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much, everybody. I learned that we are doing very well and we're doing
very well probably as well as anybody has ever done with Russia. And there's been no preside ever as tough as I have been on Russia.
All you have to do is look at the numbers, look at what we have done, look at sanctions, look at ambassadors not there, look unfortunately of what
happened in Syria recently. And I think president Putin knows that better than anybody, certainly a lot better than the media.
He understands it and he's not happy about it. And he shouldn't be happy about it because there's never been a president as tough on Russia as I
have been. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Moments ago, the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, denied that Trump was going against U.S. intelligence and said that the
president was saying no to answering reporters' questions, not to the question is Russia still targeting the United States.
This, of course, all comes just a day after the president that he misspoke during the summit with Vladimir Putin trying to lessen the intense backlash
after he appeared to side with Putin over U.S. intelligence on Russia's election attacks.
Let's discuss this, Stephen Collinson is live in Washington. Nick Paton Walsh is with me here in the studio. So, Steven, again today the president
appearing to contradict U.S. intelligence on whether or not Russia is still trying to target the United States and its elections.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's right. A few days ago, Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence basically came out
and said the lights are blinking red. That the Russians are going to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections. That's the consensus of the
intelligence community and many Republicans are in Capitol Hill, by the way.
And it appeared at least that the president contradicted that today in that pool spray in the White House. I suppose that you could take Sarah
Sanders' explanation at face value, when the president said no, he was saying no, I don't want to answer any questions.
The fact is he did then go on and on and answer questions so that cools out into question and this is a White House that has a demonstrable record of
not telling the truth about many things almost every day. So, they've certainly don't get the benefit of the doubt here.
GORANI: All right. Nick Paton Walsh here, more consternation about something else. Surprisingly a tiny country, Montenegro, the newest NATO
member. The Fox News anchor, Tucker Carlson, asked the president about it to use it as an example to sort of undermine NATO's useful as before. I
talked to you about it. This is the exchange on Fox, listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Let's say Montenegro, which joined last year's attack, why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I understand what you're saying. I've asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people.
CARLSON: Yes, I'm not against Montenegro or Albania.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They're very strong people. They're very aggressive people. They may get aggressive. And congratulations, you're in World War
III, but that's the way it was setup.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: It's very difficult to make sense of this -- first of all, why out of the blue bring up Montenegro of all countries?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is hard to work out exactly what conversation that was had before that question was
asked. Did something come up in his meeting with Vladimir Putin? Because he said himself, President Trump that he had been given it a lot of
He pushed the prime minister out of the way at a NATO summit, to get a better option at a photo opportunity. Are they an aggressive country?
They have an army of 1,500 people and a nation of 62,000.
So, we're not talking about particularly militaristic state by nature, but they are deeply under threat. So, you and I sit here, and we see these
extraordinary performances because that's what they are at the end of the day.
[15:15:11] The knee jerk reaction is to sort of try and laugh them off, but there's a deeply troubling thing happening inside Montenegro. In the past
four years, two attempts at a coup, one which allegedly involved the attempted assassination of the prime minister.
Which the authorities there blamed on Russian intelligence, Russian plots deeply sophisticated. It's a big disorder that would make it impossible to
a nation to join NATO, so it stayed in Russia's sphere of influence.
GORANI: Russia was furious at Montenegro's decision to join NATO. Thank you, Nick Payton Walsh and Stephen Collison in Washington.
William Shakespear once said the course of true love never did run smooth. Hundreds of years later, his country's leaders seem to have revived that
spirit, only this time replaced the word love with Brexit.
We have covered that story measure for measure on this program even if some people have accused it as being a tale of sound and fury signifying, well,
not much progress. On that note, Theresa May offered little new after facing lawmakers earlier today, only insisting that Brexit, quote,
"continuous to mean Brexit."
There was however more theater elsewhere as Britain's former foreign secretary gave his resignation speech in parliament, and as he did so,
Boris Johnson played on another of the bard's great theme, time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS JOHNSON, FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: It is not too late to save Brexit. We have time in these negotiations. We have changed tack
once and we can change again. The problem is not that we failed to make the case for a free trade agreement of the kind spelled out at Leicester
Heights. We haven't even tried.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Bianca Nobilo joins me from Westminster. Lay out the scene for us this evening, Bianca.
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's been another agonizing day for the prime minister and I think the Shakespeare analogy is perfectly apt because
Brexit is her poison challis, this is the job that nobody wants to do. Many thought that Boris Johnson would be keen to challenge her for
But that speech today confused many. There was discussion about whether or not it would be explosive as Jeffrey House (ph) speech, which was a
crushing blow to Margaret Thatcher back in 1990, but it wasn't. It was more of a whimper, less than a bang.
He criticized the way that the government is handling Brexit saying that it remains on a number of promises that stopped short of criticizing the prime
minister herself. It was highly anticipated and many voted to potentially precipitate a no-confidence vote or at least a leadership contest within
Well, that doesn't seem to be the case, the prime minister received quite a lot of support at her back-bench community tonight. But she also faced
grueling prime minister questions where she was challenged from her own party, somebody asking her since when does Brexit mean remain, just
underscoring the fact that the direction Brexit is not something, which is embraced by many members of her party.
The divisions so stark at the moment and the atmosphere so febrile. I have been speaking to MPs out here and they have never seen it like this, the
volatility, and the sort of unexpected nature of all of the events. So parliamentary recess is approaching quickly, but I think for the prime
minister, it just can't come soon enough.
GORANI: Bianca Nobilo, thanks very much. One opposition lawmaker from the Labour Party is facing a major backlash after she sided with Theresa May in
Tuesday's crucial vote on the Customs Union, an important Brexit bill.
Kate Hoe is just a handful of Labour MPs, who support Brexit and joins me now to explain why she voted with the government.
KATE HOEY, PRO-BREXIT LABOUR MP: We weren't voting against the government, we were voting against a ridiculous amendment that had been put together by
some Tory member. If that vote would have gone through, we would not be able to leave the Customs Union. That was not what the British people
voted for and that was not what was in the Labour Party manifesto.
We go into the lobby, as Dennis Skinner said, the lobbies aren't owned by a political party, in the end you go in and vote for what you think is right.
And there was no way the five of us and indeed there were some other abstentions as well.
And of course, some of my local party members don't like it. I have been an MP for 29 years and I have had censure motion after censure motion over
the years. I'm not particularly worried about that.
GORANI: You're very long serving, but t's not that some are displeased. Some are furious asking for you to be kicked out of the party. Owen Jones
tweeted basically that you voted to save (inaudible) government. Owen Jones is a columnist here in the U.K. They should all be kicked out of the
Labour Party, you and those within the Labour Party.
[15:20:02] HOEY: I don't think that's going to happen because Jeremy Corbyn, who is our leader was in every single lobby against the E.U. over
30 years with me. The reality is we are proposing for what was right and what the British people (inaudible), and don't forget, a lot of neighbor
supporters out there all across the country, not in London.
The media is very E.U. supporters. There is a remain vote in London, but across the country, Labour supporters voted to leave. And they are not
going to want to be left by their government. If you look at the majority of voting constituencies voted to leave. I campaigned for the referendum
and my majority doubled.
GORANI: But within the Labour Party, a vast majority, a crushing majority, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this, believes that to remain is the
best option in your party.
HOEY: In the MPs, there is a few majority to remain, but most of them have accepted that we are leaving. And it's important that viewers understand
that what they're now trying to do is to change some of the ways that we leave so that it makes it a Brexit in name only, and that's not acceptable.
We don't want to end up as a rule taker. Otherwise, it made it pointless to the European Union.
GORANI: Even Boris Johnson when he was campaigning and years ago before the referendum was even in question, supported the idea of remaining in the
single market, that was five years ago. He's gone on the record as saying that -- in 2016, staying in the single market would be a good idea.
HOEY: I did a lot of rallies for all those people doing, and I never heard that said. I said it very clearly, if you want to leave the European
Union, you have to leave the European Union institutions. Otherwise, you are still tied in at the court of justice. I mean, you in America don't
let Mexico and Canada decide your laws.
GORANI: The U.S. has a much, much bigger economy.
HOEY: We want to be an independent country again. We're the fifth largest economy, we need to be positive about what can happen when we leave. It's
going to be absolutely brilliant. It won't be overnight, but it's going to be a great future for us when we leave and become an independent country
GORANI: Lastly, but what you have heads of business, industry, banks, for instance, they are saying this is not an opinion. They're saying leaving
the Customs Union and not maintaining a very close economic relationship with the E.U. would be disastrous for the economy.
HOEY: The E.U. thought that was important, they would be able to help us because the E.U. is going to suffer much more if we leave without any kind
of deal. We have got all our regulatory deals and there's absolutely no reason, that they're so angry that the British people dared, absolutely
dared to go after the establishment.
And all these big multinational corporations, they're interested in it. They want to sustain because they like in fact that they don't have the
competition and the reality is there's a lot of small businesses here in the United Kingdom who never get a word in edge ways, because it's always
the big ones get it are very happy to be getting out of the E.U. so they get out of the E.U. regulations when they don't even sell to the European
GORANI: All right. Member of Parliament, Kate Hoey, thanks very much for joining us on CNN. We appreciate it.
A lot more to come this evening. Their story captured the world's attention. We'll tell you what those Thai boys who were trapped in a cave
said when they finally got a chance to speak to the media. We'll be right back.
GORANI: Well, after more than two weeks trapped in a flooded cave and another week in hospital, the young Thai football team is finally headed
home. It has to be said looking remarkably healthy and happy and their coach met the media today playing football, and generally acting like
Jonathan Miller was at the news conference, and he joins me from Chiang Rai in Thailand. He's been covering this story from the beginning. I mean,
were they in good spirits? They seem to be, but they lived through a lot of trauma over the last several weeks?
JONATHAN MILLER, CNN ASIA CORRESPONDENT: They sure have. It was frankly a miracle that they got out. A Thai Navy SEAL diver said he didn't think
they would be able to get them out. But you saw them today alive and kicking and full of life. In fact, the doctors gave them a full clean bill
of health, both physically and mentally.
There are some words of caution attached to that by child psychologists who say be careful, because what they have been through was so immense and so
deeply formative for all of them, we have to be sure that they're not going to exhibit symptoms of PTSD, post-traumatic stress, which even those Chile
miners eight years ago suffered.
You know, they've been in really good form today. They related their stories of how when they knew they were in trouble, they tried to find
another exit. After those nine days in the darkness, those two British divers arrived.
And one of the boys, who is actually unlike all the other, who were Buddhists, this guy is a Christian -- minority in neighboring -- school
here in Chiang Rai, looked after by Christian church, he was the one who spoke to those British divers in English. And here is his recollection of
what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD (through translator): I said hello. At first, I thought they must be Thai officers, but it turned out they were not. So,
when they got out from the water, I was surprised. So, I just greet them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD (through translator): I thought this really miracle and I didn't know what to respond to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: But, you know, for all the miraculousness of this rescue, there was one tragic incident, and that was the death of the former Thai Navy
SEAL divers, who just 10 days ago could not be resuscitated after he lost consciousness underwater in this cave complex, many kilometers in.
Having tried to bring oxygen or compressed air tanks to the boys. They paid a very moving tribute -- a little boy, Tyson, in front of a portrait
of the dead former Navy SEAL, said thank you, sir, for sacrificing your life so that we can live ours.
It was very touching many (inaudible) in the room tonight, but you know, all in all, (inaudible) from that tragedy, the mood was incredibly upbeat.
The boys have been going home tonight. They're being welcomed by their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers, and they're looking forward
to going somewhere on a mystery location elsewhere in Thailand.
GORANI: Right. Let's hope they stay about ground this time. Thanks very much, Jonathan Miller, for joining us from Chiang Rai.
Still to come this evening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People here care?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, I don't know. The economy's good. Money seems to be flowing pretty well.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think that Trump will be re-elected by those counties?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: What Trump voters really think after the president's controversial summit with Vladimir Putin.
Plus, it's a political insult like no other, but is calling the U.S. president a traitor a step too far? We'll have a discussion about that,
[15:30:00] GORANI: -- a traitor a step too far? We'll have a discussion about that, next.
GORANI: Previously we're relegated to the fringe corners of the internet, something only mentioned by conspiracy theorists. I'm talking about the
word traitor and treason. But this week, a tweet from former CIA director, John Brennan, calling Donald Trump actions in Helsinki treasonous, has
brought the term into the mainstream with thousands repeating that same thought. What a way from the Twittersphere and political circles what do
actual Trump voters think of the president's actions?
Kyung Lah went to the swing state of Wisconsin to find out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the Dan O'Donnell Show.
DAN O'DONNELL, RADIO HOST: So has Trump been arrested for treason yet? Has he returned to the United States in the brig of Air Force One? Welcome
to the show. I am Dan O'Donnell --
KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The swing state of Wisconsin, the conservative base circling the wagons around Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the reactions from the left yesterday were ridiculous.
LAH: But amid the outraged callers, one moved by the president's press conference with Putin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The man is an embarrassment to us all. I voted for him. I will not again.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really.
O'DONNELL: Swing voters are notoriously difficult to predict. So there might be an issue like this that is all anyone talks about for the better
part of a week. I don't believe that there is going to be any lasting impact.
LAH: Wisconsin's swing voters, many of them white working class voters, swung to Trump in 2016 in Kenosha County, just south of Milwaukee. Trump
won here by just 255 votes, a county that hadn't voted for a Republican president since Richard Nixon. Like other parts of Wisconsin, Kenosha
County has seen jobs leave.
This was the Chrysler plant. Spanky's Bar is a couple of blocks from that torn-down plant. Since Trump took office, the economy has only gotten
better in Kenosha, says Anna Stewart. She voted for Trump in 2016.
LAH: Do you think that Trump will be re-elected by this county?
ANNA STEWART, TRUMP VOTER: I do. I do. I think he's just -- he's got the steam going. He's done a great job so far as president. He's shown us
that he continues to persevere beyond the criticism and do what's right anyways because it's --
LAH: You're going to vote for him again?
STEWART: Oh, yes. Yes.
[15:35:01] LAH: Tony Valente's conversations over the bar rarely focus on Russia.
LAH: Do people here care?
TONY VALENTE, SPANKY'S BAR & GRILL: I don't -- you know, I don't know. Their money -- the money's -- the economy's good. Money seems to be go
flowing pretty well. House -- you know, house prices are coming up. Interest rates are going up. I think people are pretty happy with that.
LAH: But the press conference with Putin did have an effect on Pam Anderson.
PAM ANDERSON, TRUMP VOTER: For him, kind of just push it off to the side and say, like he doesn't believe it, I think he's really mocking the whole
LAH: A swing voter now pushed away from Trump.
ANDERSON: I had voted for Obama. And this time around I went ahead and voted for Donald Trump. And I really regret that decision.
LAH: What's going to happen next time around?
ANDERSON: Not him.
LAH: You've already decided.
ANDERSON: I've already decided.
LAH: Pam Anderson says this about Trump's back peddling, the would versus wouldn't, she says, quote, that's total BS. She says her opinion about the
president has not changed one bit.
Kyung Lah, CNN, Kenosha, Wisconsin.
GORANI: So we were talking earlier about how traitor is now being bandied about, that term, is it too loose a term, is it irresponsible to call the
president of the United States a traitor? Let's discuss this with John Schindler, a former intelligence analyst with the National Security Agency.
And Jason Miller, a former communications advisor to the Donald Trump campaign.
Jason, let me start with you. You had former Trump supporters in Kyung Lah's piece there who were saying, the president is basically mocking the
system. I used to support him. I can't support him anymore. You heard what the president said, on foreign soil, in the presence of Vladimir
Putin, essentially siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies. Can you support that?
JASON MILLER, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR TO THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Well, I'm glad that the president came out yesterday and cleaned up his
statement from Helsinki, talking about where he misspoke with the would and wouldn't. But I would --
GORANI: But did you buy that, Jason? The would and wouldn't?
MILLER: No, I do, because the president has been very tough on Russia. We talk about the sanctions against business -- Russian businessmen, the
sanctions against Russian businesses. Kicking in with the diplomats out of the country, sending both arms and energy to Ukraine. So you can make the
case that President Trump has been the strongest on Russia with the actions from his administration of almost every president that we've ever had. But
I think where Democrats like John Brennan are going way too far in their criticism of President Trump is to throw out some of these words like
treasonous, or traitor. Those types of words. When somebody does that, it's what we -- here in the States, called TDS, or Trump Derangement
Syndrome, where some of the partisan opponents get so worked up and so angered at President Trump that they basically kill their entire argument
by discrediting themselves with accusations that aren't at all accurate.
JOHN SCHINDLER, FORMER INTELLIGENCE ANALYST WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Hi. I'm here.
GORANI: On that note, I want to get John Schindler. Exactly. Here you go. John Schindler, this is your opportunity. You tweeted this, by the
way. While you're speaking, I'm going to put up your tweet. Go ahead. And because you call the president a traitor.
SCHINDLER: Yes. Look, I'm not stuck on the term. It has legal meaning, what I am stuck on is the president's conduct in Helsinki, which no one who
is not a hardcore Trumper or paid to be thinks the president didn't mean with his fake apology yesterday which he immediately turned around on
Twitter and turned it 180 again. He's back to blaming the intelligence community, blaming everyone but Vladimir Putin and himself for the debacle
in Helsinki, which even most fellow Republicans, even Newt Gingrich, have admitted publicly, it was a disaster. There's no way to spin this without
Trump not being Trump. This is a culmination of years of Trump's bizarre behavior towards Putin and the Kremlin, culminating in a presser for the
world that no one will ever forget.
GORANI: John Schindler, why do you think then he's acting this way? You called the behavior treasonous, whatever you want to call it. We're not
stuck on the term. You're saying basically he's been cozying up in a way that doesn't make sense to the president of Russia. Why do you think that
SCHINDLER: At this point, only two possibilities, just two. One is the president has some sort of concealed clandestine relationship with Russian
interests, the state or otherwise, which are not new, which is were driving him toward behaviors that are exactly contrary to his own government's
policies, as Jason Miller correctly pointed out. Or he's frankly deranged. He's not fit for office. There's no way to explain this. This is no
president in American history has ever done anything like this. I'm a historian. I know these things. This is utterly unprecedented uncharted
waters for our republic here.
GORANI: Jason, your reaction to that?
MILLER: I think what John is missing here, and I think that he's certainly someone who has the background to realize the full chess board that we're
looking at on the world stage, is we look at the hotspots when we talk about Syria and Iran. We look at North Korea. We look at where Ukraine is
right now. Obviously wish the previous administration would have been tougher with Russia, when Russia took over Crimea. But we need Russia's
help and cooperation in a number of these fronts. It's vital to both our interests, the Israel's interest and to number of other allies in Europe.
And to go and just simply discount to say, we're no longer going to try to have a good relationship with Russia or try to improve upon on, I think is
very naive. I think that's not looking at the threats that are facing the country and the challenges that are coming at us.
And so, what I think President Trump is trying to do is get ourselves to a better place. Now, I wish he had been tougher with Putin when he was on
the stage with him in Helsinki. Absolutely agreed with that. But I was glad to see that the president came out and very clear that he trusts our
intelligence, he backs our intelligence and he made that very clear from his press conference that he did yesterday.
[15:40:48] GORANI: John.
SCHINDLER: No, he doesn't. No, that's simply not true. That is a lie. That is a spin. That is not true, Jason. That's a lie.
MILLER: He said that very clearly. Are you saying he didn't say that?
SCHINDLER: Those who question Russia are naive? You actually believe the president when he said that despite the called there -- I see Nazis,
MILLER: I say to turn a blind eye -- I don't know where you're getting to this -- throwing up crazy stuff like that. But for Syria and Iran and
North Korea -- Russia's cooperation.
SCHINDLER: Let me speak.
GORANI: Sorry. OK. John, go ahead and --
SCHINDLER: You said we're naive for not working with Russia?
GORANI: Yes, go ahead.
MILLER: We're naive to realize --
GORANI: My time. Sorry. Jason, just one moment. John, respond to that, the belief that the belief that -- let me ask you the question, John.
SCHINDLER: No, that's what is naive, is we're thinking we can trust Putin as a good faith partner on anything. Yes, we can work with Russia from a
position of our strength, not theirs which the president just gave to them as the greatest gift he's ever given anyone on that stage in Helsinki and
it will not be done by our allies. We are now terrified.
MILLER: And, John, we're actually -- I think in a lot of ways we're saying -- yes. John, I think we're saying a very similar thing here, if you just
keep the temperature down just a little bit. And I think you and I would agree and tell me if you don't that if we're going to get anything done in
Syria or with Iran, or even if you talk about North Korea or with Ukraine, we have to have some buy in and some level of cooperation with Russia.
We're simply not going to make progress without --
SCHINDLER: May I respond?
GORANI: Yes, go ahead, John.
SCHINDLER: If we can get Russian buy-in. It is incredibly naive to you because you have no background with Russia, whatsoever, to think we're
going to get a buy-in from Vladimir Putin from anything other than a position of unambiguous strength by the west side. Yes, we need their
cooperation, the kind of cooperation they'll give us voluntarily, is not helpful cooperation. We need him to work with us when we are helping set
at least 50 percent of the agenda, not giving the Russians everything they want, which is what the president promised them on that stage.
GORANI: John, let me ask Jason -- sorry. Let me ask the question, please. What do you think the U.S. and Russia can do together on Syria? They're on
opposite sides of this conflict for all intents and purposes.
SCHINDLER: Actually, very little --
GORANI: Sorry. John, I'm asking Jason. The Russian president and the Kremlin supports and has supported the regime of Bashar al-Assad that has
bombed civilian areas for years now. What is it that the U.S. and Russia can do together to try to now come to a peaceful solution after all these
years of supporting this regime by Moscow?
MILLER: The only way that we're ever going to get Assad to quit murdering his people, such a vicious way that we've seen over these last years, is if
Putin starts telling him to knock it off, and start putting some force on Assad to stop this. That's one clear thing right there. And so until we
get that --
GORANI: But how does the -- I'm unclear, because the president did not elaborate at all on what was discussed in that meeting. I'm unclear how
the U.S. and Russia can work together.
MILLER: Russia doesn't want these economic sanctions on their businessmen, on their businesses to remain in place forever, so that's obviously one
tool massive tool that we have. And also that enticed me. Look, the U.S. is still the dominant superpower in the world and so Putin has to take that
SCHINDLER: Can I jump in here?
SCHINDLER: I actually think this may be one area where Jason and I probably are on the very similar page here. I'm a realist and I think
there's very little the U.S. can do in Syria now to mitigate the Assad regime's horrible, disgusting, probably genocidal behavior, which is aid
and abetted by Moscow and Iran. The reality is this is not Donald Trump's fault, this one really is not. This goes back to 2013 when Obama walked
away from his own red line in Syria. And ever since then that, in effect, outsources U.S. policy to Moscow and to some extent Iran.
And the Obama administration never picked up those pieces and we can't expect Trump to. That's not fair. I mean, I'm a fair person about this,
and Syria is not Trump's fault. And our leverage, frankly, over the Russians in Syria is relatively minimal. That's just reality. When the
Russians get out of the line, we will smack them down, as we did a few months ago, with the Wagner mercenaries in Syria. But our ability to
overall change the dynamic of that horrible, awful conflict at this point is pretty limited.
[15:45:19] GORANI: Very briefly, the Democrats are -- I want to just change the topic here. Democrats are calling for Donald Trump's
interpreter to testify on Capitol Hill. Very briefly, Jason, what do you make of that, good idea or a bad idea? We don't know what happened in that
MILLER: I think that they're grasping to try to get the interpreter. I would urge the administration to put out as much information as possible.
Obviously if there are things that are sensitive or classified and maybe that might not be for full public consumption. And I'll tell you why. We
know for both the president and for Putin and the comments that he made in the Helsinki press conference that Trump did raise a number of these hot
spots, as I talked about Syria and Iran and North Korea and such. So we know that President Trump engaged him on a number of these fronts. I think
this is a position of strength for the administration to come out and say here's where I pressed Putin.
And to John's point about where some of these problems arrived, have come out previously was Syria going back to the previous administration, here's
the bottom line, is that there's been a lot of experts who have been saying, here's how we need to do things in these hotspots for years and
hasn't worked. These problems are not getting better. So I will give Trump credit for trying to do things differently. I would like to know, if
there's someone, give us some more tangible signs of progress that you've made in that meeting --
GORANI: Jason, I appreciate it. That wasn't the question, very briefly. Democrats calling for Trump's interpreter in that Helsinki one-on-one with
Putin, good idea or a bad idea, John Schindler?
SCHINDLER: Bad idea, only because I think we need to think about that unfortunate state department employee, who was the translator, who
shouldn't really be put on the spot like this, it's a really bad precedent. And as much as I don't like, Donald Trump's relationship with Vladimir
Putin or whatever that may be, he does have a right as a president to have those conversations kept secret, at least for now. That is part of
international diplomacy. So I think making an example of a government employee who is just an innocent translator here, is -- as much I'd like to
know what was said, I don't think that's a good precedent our country should go down. I really don't.
GORANI: All right. Thank you. Well, you've agreed on that. Jason Miller and John Schindler, thanks to both of you for joining us. We appreciate
the spirited discussion. We'll take a quick break here on CNN. We'll be right back. Stay with us.
GORANI: A judge in America has ordered that a young Russian woman accused of being a spy be held in jail until trial. Authorities alleged Maria
Butina was an illegal foreign agent with links to Russia's spy agency who attempted to offer sex ion exchange for political access. They believe she
tried to set up a back channel between Moscow and the Trump campaign. Butina is pleading not guilty.
Crime and justice reporter, Shimon Prokupecz is covering the story for us. What happened in -- what's the latest on her case? Because she's staying -
- she's staying in jail, right?
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, that's right, she's staying in jail. And really the reason for that was she's not a U.S.
citizen. And the other issues that she can just walk into the embassy here, the Russian embassy here in Washington, D.C. on a diplomatic vehicle
head to the airport and basically flee the country and there's nothing the U.S. officials could do. So that's what the argument that the government
was making to the judge today and the judge agreed with that, and so she's now being held here until she either plead guilty or goes to trial.
[15:50:11] You know, and this is really a fascinating case. You don't always get a glimpse into these kinds of investigations, sometimes the FBI
here does this for years, they track so-called illegal people who come here on behalf of the Russian government to conduct an influence operation. And
that's what the FBI and the Department of Justice here say she was doing. She came here under the disguise of being a student at a D.C. college,
studying at a local college here. And then she essentially met influential people, in fact had a relationship with someone. And as you said, had
offered sex to a different individual, to try and get influence, to try and join a political organization.
It's really stunning when you think about the work here and all the time and years that it took probably for the Russians to put this together, to
have here come here, to figure out who she would need to make contact with. And in that sense, that is where the sophistication lies. I mean, we've
seen the Russians do this here and other parts of the world. But the sophistication here is just how they knew who to target. In one case, they
were targeting the NRA, various influential groups that really -- it worked in some ways. But the FBI was all over this for quite some time now. And
we'll see what happens.
GORANI: But I'm curious. Do we know how they caught her in the end? How her, you know, spying was uncovered?
PROKUPECZ: Right, when she came here under the student visa, you know, it's probably safe to assume that that kind of caught the eye of U.S.
officials. Also there are warrants, the secret. We've heard about these warrants, national security warrants that the FBI can obtain, they're
called FISAs. It's probably something that they use in this case. And they saw who she was communicating with, people in Russia. They say that
she was in constant contact with intelligence, Russian intelligence officials in Russia. And so they were able to monitor -- or really see the
type of people she was meeting with and all along really they just did a lot of work to keep an eye on her.
GORANI: Shimon Prokupecz, thanks very much. We'll have much more after the break, stay with us.
GORANI: And now for something different, Tokyo is a thriving city, obviously. A combination of traditionalism and modernism. Tonight, we
meet the kimono designers giving a futuristic vision to an ancient craft.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At his 88-year-old workshop in Shinjuku, one man continues his family's kimono making legacy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Edo-Komon is a dye material that represents Tokyo. It has a history of 250 years and the patterns are very
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Edo-Komon refers to a kimono pattern dyed by hand using intricate stencils. With meticulous care, Yuichi Hirose spreads a colored
rice paste called nori over the stencil, transforming a 13-meter fabric into a frenzy of sharps. The fourth generation craftsman started using
unconventional stencils about five years ago to broaden the market for his kimonos.
[15:55:18] In these galaxies of tiny dots generations of expertise handed down to the daily tireless work of craftsmen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I've been thinking about why it's so important for craftsmen to keep using these traditional techniques. And
I've reached the conclusion that this now new technology could get the beauty and tirelessness of something made by hand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In his studio in Shibuya, Yuima Nakazato is sketching a look that they see more space age than old school. Exploring the
intersection between fashion and technology. His shimmering designs have been described as neo futurist. But Nakazato says that at its score, his
work is inspired by age-old Japanese design.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): In Japan, we have a textile called Boro that comes from the tradition of caring for and mending kimonos by
patching pieces together.
By doing this, people can wear them for a long time, because kimonos were very expensive.
I was wondering how I could tap into that culture for the modern age.
Nakazato solution was to create detachable units that can combine to form customizable garments. It's meant to foster sustainability and the
notoriously wasteful fashion industry to bridge the gap between the latest technologies and ancient tradition.
GORANI: There you have it there visiting -- for those of you planning on visiting Tokyo.
We're going to take a quick break, when we come back, we'll have a lot more on our top news story. We heard from the White House press secretary about
comments that the president made today, once again appearing to question the conclusion of America's own intelligence agencies about whether or not
Russia is still interfering or trying to interfere in upcoming elections in America.
And of course the big business news story related to Google. That's coming up at the top of the hour on "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS." I'm Hala Gorani.
I'll see you tomorrow.