Return to Transcripts main page


Trump, Omarosa Face Off In Reality-TV-Style War; Trump Admits Omarosa Signed NDA To Work In His White House; Roger Stone Claims Government Spied On E-mails, Texts, Phone Calls; At Least 5 Roger Stone Associates Subpoenaed By Mueller. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired August 13, 2018 - 19:00   ET


[19:00:00] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: -- Ripley, thanks very much. I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks very much for watching tonight. "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, OUTFRONT HOST: Out front next. When they go low, Trump goes lower. The ugly fight between two reality TV stars, one of whom happens to be the President of the United States.

Plus, Bob Mueller talking to Roger Stone's associates. Is the Special Counsel closing in on Stone himself? Well, Roger Stone is out front tonight. A new audio of the very moment an airport worker stole a plane in Seattle. Why security experts fear tonight that it could happen again. Let's go out front.

And good evening, I'm Erin Burnett. Out front tonight, President Trump's hypocrisy. Today Trump over the course of nearly three hours of his day sent four tweets. So four tweets over nearly three hours of the day. From the most powerful leader on earth slamming an ex- adviser.

Now, while that Adviser Omarosa Manigault Newman maybe making things up left and right. Trump's tirade about her today proved that he can match her at her own game. The President sending those tweets calling her whacky, vicious, not smart, a loser, nothing but problems, a low life, someone who missed work and meetings. And you can see I'm selectively picking. He went on and on. And that's on top of saying this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you feel betrayed by Omarosa, sir?




BURNETT: OK, we heard you. Low life. OK. Never mine the President's spending his time with this sort of personal nastiness. How about this? Because this is the bottom line. He hired Omarosa. He paid her with taxpayer money, the top salary level in the White House which is $179,700 a year.

And when she was fired by Chief of Staff John Kelly for, quote, pretty serious integrity violations, Trump's campaign then offered her $15,000 a month through the year 2020 according to The Washington Post. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I mean, you say, why was Trump paying someone who is not smart, a loser and a low life to work for him in the White House and for his campaign? Let's be clear, doing that with American taxpayer money and a lot of it. Was it her public taunting of him?


OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, TRUMP'S FORMER AIDE: Every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: So no woman problem for him, do you think?

NEWMAN: You know what? Donald Trump has an authentic problem. He's too really for the Republican Party.


BURNETT: We like to hear that. And those immensely flattering comments certainly seemed to impress him in the past because the President has publicly praised Omarosa again and again and again.


TRUMP: Omarosa, who's actually a very nice person but I don't want to say that, because I'll destroy her image by saying that. She's actually a very, very fine person and a pastor.

Omarosa, he's a wonderful woman. You are amazing, OK, and I just want to thank you very much for everything you did. She worked so hard.

I like Omarosa. Omarosa is a good person.


BURNETT: OK, a good person who works so hard. Pardon me for being slightly confused. I mean, the tweet today then that said she was a low life and not smart and missing meetings, was it true? I mean, there's one thing we know tonight. If what Trump is saying in his tirade today is the truth, his words from the campaign trails were lies. His judgment of who to hire is dire and his willingness to look the other way to pay Omarosa with taxpayer and campaign donor money, not his own, yours, raises serious questions.

Abby Phillip is out front live at the White House. And Abby, the White House was hoping this fight with Omarosa would go away, right? She would sort of hang herself here, but President Trump himself is making sure that does not happen.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Erin. The President pouring fuel on this fire with a former aide that frankly he made famous. He both made her famous during the "Apprentice" years and then later hired her on to the campaign and brought her into White House.

Bit now this has become a quite nasty disagreement with Omarosa making some really bombshell claims about the President in this book and going on a lengthy media tour to expound on them. The President responding to her this morning after spending really eight months not really saying a whole lot. She left the White House having been fired in December. Then went on big brother and began talking about President Trump.

And the President really said nothing. It was extraordinary. A lot of people wondered what it would take. Now we know. Now we know that these claims, these latest claims that Omarosa has made which include some claims about the President's own ability to do his job, recordings of him in conversations with her, recordings of others in the White House, they really have led to so many questions, both about -- concrete questions about national security. But also about what else is out there. I think that's the question right now that a lot of White House aides are facing head on. There's a sense of paranoia here in this building tonight as White House aides they wonder what else does Omarosa have taped and how did she get away with it for so long, Erin.

[19:05:05] BURNETT: All right, Abby, thank you very much. And I would hope they have some paranoia about each other too. I mean, it seems like everybody feels like they can tape whatever they want, violate all kinds of protocol. I mean, it's pretty shocking.

I want to go now to former Special Assistant to President Trump Marc Lotter, along with Political Editor for New York Times, Patrick Healy, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Harry Sandick. Patrick, we have these four tweets over about three hours about Omarosa by the President of the United States. This is what he chose to spend that time doing today. And he came up with lots of descriptions, whacky, vicious, not smart, loser, nothing but problems, low life. I can go on and on.

PATRICK HEALY, POLITICS EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, it's extraordinary, Erin, because President Trump was the only person in the White House who wanted Omarosa there. She was there because he believed that she could bring some, you know, some kind of value to his inner circle. And I think he really liked the flattery.

We know that about President Trump, that he felt like he likes people when they go on TV and they say things like he has an authenticity problem. I mean, a, it doesn't make sense but, b, it's exactly the kind of thing that he loves to hear that sort of flattery about himself. But, you know, he cannot simply write off Omarosa and what she is saying by presidential tweet after tweet. He basically owns this is problem. He empowered her. He flattered her. He kept her around.

And now she's doing what, you know, I think a lot of us knew was coming. You know, she's clearly cashing in on this. But to raise the question what else does she have taped and how does that happen in a White House where an aide who, you know, only the President really want there is secretly taping, you know, his own advisers?

BURNETT: I mean, Marc, how does that happen? Are you shocked to hear she was sitting in there, you know, you obviously worked there as well, and recording random conversations?

MARC LOTTER, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: It is shocking and disappointing, because not only does it violate a trust with the President, but it also violates the trust amongst the staff. If you have to worry about these things, you can't have open candid conversations and the give and take that is required as you're dealing with some of these very challenging issues not only domestically but around the world. If the staff can't speak freely amongst each other to work out and make the best suggestions possible to the leader, then you're doing a disservice to the leader and ultimately in this case to the country.

BURNETT: So I want to ask NDAs. I want to ask you about it, Marc. But first to you, Harry. You know, the President saying she signed an NDA. Obviously, The Washington Post has a copy of the NDA that she said she was asked to sign. She says she didn't sign it.

Look, the ethics under President Obama said no one in the Obama administration signed NDAs. The former Associate White House Counsel under Obama said that people did not sign those. People often ask to it if they could make their staff sign them but they said no. Would an NDA, if she had one, be enforceable?

HARRY SANDICK, FMR. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: I think if it covered the time while she worked for President Trump in the White House, I predict it would not be enforceable. We review this contrary to public policy. We don't want to put handcuffs on the people who work in government to prevent them from speaking to members of Congress, to the media if necessary. It's not done.

BURNETT: Well, and also just -- I mean, to be clear, Marc, right? I mean, you work for the American people. You don't work for a person, right? It's not a dictatorship, right? You work for the American people.

But let me just ask you this, you know, the President's saying that, you know, she signed a nondisclosure agreement. Kellyanne Conway is saying others who work in the west wing also did so. You worked there. You now work for Trump 2020. Have you signed one, Marc?

LOTTER: I've signed many nondisclosure agreements going back to the 2016 campaign, going through the transition. And one of the first things that happened when I left the White House in October and moved over to the political side was I signed a nondisclosure agreement. And I actually looked over the weekend and compared the language that had been reported from Obama -- from Omarosa's and mine and they looked to be identical.

So, this is not hush money because this is not a -- an attempt to keep someone quiet. I can tell you from my fact that they don't want me to be quiet. They brought me out here so I could speak more.

BURNETT: Well, yes, if you say good things about them. If you came out and said, hey, you know what Erin, I want to tell you about the tanning bed or whatever, the things that she is alleging without proof I want to add, but that -- they would have a problem with that, Marc. Let's just be honest, right?

LOTTER: Well, the nondisclosure agreement -- they covers speaking disparagingly about the personal side of your interactions with the principles on the campaign.

BURNETT: But you have a problem with that, Marc. You signed one. I mean, you don't -- when you're in the White House, you don't work for him. You work for us.

LOTTER: The NDAs I'm talking about are the ones that I signed on the campaign. So --And those are the ones, and I don't know if Omarosa signed one from the 2016 campaign or if this one was --

BURNETT: Did you sign one in the White House?

LOTTER: I believe I did, yes.

BURNETT: And you don't have a problem with like a personal filthy to Trump over that at all?

LOTTER: I have a personal sense of loyalty to any elected official that I would work with but I would keep our private conversations private and that way they can trust my counsel.

[19:10:07] And then my job is to, in this case, as a spokesperson and I go out, when the decision maker makes the decision, when the elected official makes that decision, then I'll go out there and I will say the things that need to be said on behalf of our administration.

BURNETT: Go ahead, Patrick.

HEALY: I just don't know why the taxpayers of this country would want to be paying money to fund government salaries of employees who work for them but have signed a nondisclosure disagreement for a President who's operating like this is a business. Like this is part of Trump Inc., where basically he decides what the employee gets to disclose or not disclose be it on Congress, the media, anybody else. That's not how this is supposed to work.

And beyond that with Omarosa, the idea that the Trump campaign may be giving, you know, $15,000 a month to an employee, let's say like an Omarosa, if she had been brought on, and signing an NDA, it looks like hush money. It has that sort of feel about it. And I guess I don't understand what that money would be like for Omarosa if she is sort of a low life or these other words that President Trump used. Why even think about giving her money?

LOTTER: Well let's remember here, when she first departed the White House, the very next day, she went on national television and said she resigned. She praised the President's leadership. She said he is not a racist. So what has changed here in the last eight months is Omarosa's story because she's now trying to sell a book. If she had continued on with the campaign, then she could have obviously continued --

BURNETT: Marc, you're completely right, her story has changed, but so has his, right? I mean, played him saying all these, you know, incredibly kind things about her, right? And now she's a whacky, loser, low life, right? So he was either lying then or he's lying now too.

LOTTER: Well, I think what we're seeing now is that Omarosa was not going to honor the loyalty that President Trump has shown her over the course of 15 years or to the longstanding tradition of not violating that confidence when you're having those interactions between staff members or between the principles, whether that be the President or any level of elected official. She has now decided that she's going to throw away that and say everything that she thinks in some cases making up.

BURNETT: Which may be true, but again, I'm just pointing out he lied then or he lied now. That's all I'm saying, right? He said one thing then and he's saying a completely different thing now.

I mean, Harry, when it comes to this issue, though, the nondisclosure is significant. Marc is saying he didn't have a problem signing one. But just saying, Marc, I have something -- eventually, at some point, need to say or wanted to say that was negative, you're saying you don't think that the NDA would be upheld because the person does not swear filthy to an individual. They swear to the American people.

SANDICK: I think that's right. For the time, at least while he worked in the Trump administration. If he had that was something important to say, even if it was disparaging to the President, we wouldn't want to have a contract that says that he couldn't march into the office, let's say, of a member of Congress without a subpoena, without being compelled and say there's something going on at the White House that you need to know about. This contract could be read to prevent that and so I think a judge would decline to read it that way and would allow someone in Marc's position to speak to whoever he needed to speak to about something that was important, even if it disparaged to the President.

BURNETT: All right. Well, I thank you all very much for your time and being so forth right.

And next, Trump confidant Roger Stone claims he has new evidence that the government was spying on him. What is his proof? Well, Roger Stone is my guess next.

Plus, Trump quoting over Peter Strzok. You know, the FBI agent who wrote anti-Trump text messages. Strzok was fired. Does his punishment hit the crime (ph).

And serious security concerns being raised after a baggage handler stole an airplane, a passenger airplane.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He came flying out of the cargo area from Delta. You need to call and scramble now.




[19:17:28] BURNETT: Tonight, Trump confidant Roger Stone claiming his new evidence that the government was spying on him. He claims they are reading his e-mails, his text messages and monitoring his phone calls, the full Monty. Stone saying a whistle blower told his lawyer that there was a FISA application to surveil him.

This is the wall seem to be closing in on Stone in the Mueller investigation. At least five Stone associates have now been subpoenaed by the Special Counsel. Stone himself, of course at this point as far as we know, we'll see if this changes in the next few seconds, but has not.

Out front now, Roger Stone, longtime Trump confidant and former Political Adviser to the President. Roger, good to have you with me. I really appreciate your time tonight. You know, I was reading your article that you wrote and you said that you got this whistle blower who has informed your lawyers that your name is in the Carter Page FISA application and that it was clear in there that there was a FISA application to surveil you. Have you actually seen that FISA warrant? Are you sure that it exists?

ROGER STONE, LONGTIME DONALD TRUMP CONFIDANT: Well, first of all, The New York Times, the newspaper of record as you know, Erin, reported this on page one on January 28th, 2017, above the fold in a story which said that Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were all subject to FISA warrants. A whistle blower has told my attorneys that this was referred to in the redacted portion of the FISA application for Carter Page and cline also reports it from a separate source in his book. I believe it to be true. Obviously, we would explore this if there is any effort to bring a bogus charge against me.

I believe on the basis of many of the questions that lawyers for those who have gone to the grand jury and lawyers for those who have been questioned tell my attorneys that on the basis of questions that are asked, it's apparent that my e-mail, my text messages and my phone calls have been breached.

BURNETT: So that's what those have been questioned. And as I said, there's five of them we know. One of them, of course, was your friend Kristin Davis who testified before the grand jury, Mueller's grand jury on Friday. Have you had a chance to speak about what exactly she was asked?

STONE: Well, at this juncture we are communicating through our attorneys because I don't want there to be any inference that I have in any way tampered with witnesses. But based on what we can learn, Friday was kind of like the deep state trifecta.

[19:20:00] In one day, Kristin Davis, longtime associate of mine, someone for whom I have an extraordinarily high regard, in fact, I'm the godfather to her son, testified before the grand jury. My long- time traveling aide Andrew Miller was held in contempt because of his refusal to testify.

BURNETT: Were all the questions she was asked, though, Kristin Davis, were they all about you? Because you had referenced that those who have been questioned, they're making it clear that they think that the feds were in possession of, right, your texts, your e-mails. Was she also under that impression from what your lawyers have communicated?

STONE: Yes, I think that's fair to say. The point of course of this is that there is no evidence and there is no witness who can testify truthfully to say that I either colluded with the Russians, collaborated with WikiLeaks or was involved in any other illegal activity in connection with the 2016 election.

BURNETT: So Kristin Davis as you point out, right, not the first person to go in front of the grand jury. We know as I said a five total, Andrew Miller, you mentioned another one, Sam Nunberg, Michael Caputo, the man you say was your back channel to the WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange, Randy Credico. So all of them are on there. You have said you're the unnamed American mentioned in the major Mueller indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers. Why, Roger, do you think that Mueller's interest in you has seemed to grow, right? Because it's person after person after person all of whom have one thing in common and that is that they are associates of yours.

STONE: Because this is a politically motivated investigation. Because I am the conservatives that liberals unfortunately love to hate, because I think I was very effective in my advocacy and my efforts to elect Donald Trump. But at the same time, and not all of those people have testified yet, but none of those individuals have any evidence or proof or can say truthfully that I was involved in Russian collusion, again, any trafficking of allegedly hacked e-mails with WikiLeaks or any other illegality pertaining to the 2016 election. That is a dead end.

If the government wants to bring a charge without evidence, that's certainly possible. I think we understand that a slick prosecutor can mislead a grand jury to indict the proverbial ham sandwich. That's not the same thing as proving your case in court in front of a real jury.

BURNETT: Which, of course, you've seen Bob Mueller do right now with your former Associate Paul Manafort. Before I ask you about him, because I know you knew him very well over a very long period of time, Roger. I want to ask you about your situation being, in some ways, I was thinking today similar to Michael Cohen's in that you're both close to the President and Mueller is interviewing a lot of people but not either one of you, right, that all of a sudden in his case he got turned over for a major criminal investigation. A lot of lawyers, Roger, you're well aware of this, you know, think that the fact that Mueller has not interviewed you but has interviewed so many people around you is a sinister sign. Here's a few.


SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: For someone like Stone not being spoken to is definitely a bad sign.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Special Counsel is interested in Roger Stone. It's likely that he is setting up a process where he is looking to squeeze roger stone for information.

PAUL CALLAN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: He should be nervous because they're coming after him and I'm telling you he's going to wind up in front of the grand jury.


BURNETT: Do you think that's right? Do you expect, Roger, at this point to be brought in front of the grand jury, indicted and charged by Mueller?

STONE: Well I have no idea. First of all, I must tell you, you know, honestly, I don't know who any of those people are in there. They're with no (INAUDIBLE) to tell me who they are. So --

BURNETT: Right. You could only hear them, yes. Various lawyers, right. I'm just --

STONE: And there are other attorneys who disagree. Look, the process is going to take its course. The enormous burden on me is a financial one. Not only do I have the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, I have a number of nuisance harassment lawsuits against me.

My legal costs are projected to hit $2 million. I am not a wealthy man. I've had to set up a legal defense fund. It's This is an expensive process. But there is no circumstance in which I intend to be pressured in order to testify against the President.

First of all, I have nothing that I could say about him that would be negative. And secondarily, I'm just not going to do that.

BURNETT: So there's no situation under which you would do that? I mean, Michael Cohen has made it clear, right, that he would. But you're saying you would not go down that path for anything.

STONE: That is correct. You know, I can't speak for Michael Cohen. And I don't know. He may or may not have done. But speaking for myself, I wouldn't rule out cooperating with the Special Counsel if I can be helpful in some area, but there's no circumstance under which I would testify against the President.

[19:25:00] BURNETT: You have, of course, been close to the President for a long time, 40 years. That's why you say what you just said. Today, you know, you can't have missed the whole Omarosa back and forth. He spent a few hours tweeting about her. One of the things he tweeted, Roger, "She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes. I said OK. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious but not smart."

Roger, my question to you was -- is, if she is smart -- or he didn't think she's smart, right, she's vicious, she's a low life, she's all those things he said about her, why did he give her a job that paid the top level a lot at the White House at taxpayer expense? You know him. Why did he do it?

STONE: Well, quite obviously his opinion of her has changed and her opinion of his has changed. Frankly, I think she did the administration a disservice early on when she convinced the President to send a delegation to Haiti for the inauguration of the new regime there which is unfortunately the same old corrupt regime that ripped the people of Haiti off after the earthquake and stole all of the earthquake relief funds in conjunction with the Clinton foundation with new front men. So I think she's already done this administration a disservice in her --

BURNETT: But Roger, you and I both know, you've spoken negatively about her in the past. Everyone in the White House told the President that they thought that she was a person that lacked integrity. He didn't care. He paid her the top level at taxpayer expense, all right? he did that.

So, I don't -- it doesn't add up to me that all of the sudden his point of view just changed. You don't go from admiring to someone to saying they're a low life dumbo. It just doesn't happen with that.

STONE: But perhaps he wasn't aware that she was capable of treachery. Look, she is the one who said he wasn't a racist. She is the one who said that he would be a terrific president. She's obviously changed her view. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

But, look, she asked to hold her wedding reception in the Rose Garden, that was denied. No staff member has ever done so. But she showed up to have pictures taken there anyway. She broke the rules. I don't know what she was doing for the administration other than misleading them on Haiti policy. So, frankly, I was glad to see her go.

BURNETT: All right. Well, Roger, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

STONE: Erin, thank you for having me.

BURNETT: All right, Roger Stone.

And next, President Trump again commenting on the physical appearance of two women. These women had ties to the Russia investigation. Why does how they look matter?

Plus Giuliani backtracks. Now insisting there were no conversations between Trump and Comey about General Flynn. Why is he pulling such a 180?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [19:31:00] ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: New tonight, fired Peter Strzok. The FBI agent removed from the Russia probe for sending critical text messages about Donald Trump was fired today. President Trump quickly hailed the decision tweeting: Agent Peter Strzok was fired by the FBI, finally.

The list of bad players in the FBI and DOJ gets longer and longer. Based on the fact that Strzok was in charge of the witch hunt, will it be dropped? It is a total hoax. No collusion, no obstruction, I just fight back.

OUTFRONT now, national affairs correspondent for "The Nation", Joan Walsh, and host of "The Ben Ferguson Show", Ben Ferguson.

Ben, the head of the office that normally handles disciplinary action at the FBI recommended a demotion and a suspension for Strzok for 60 days. Yet the deputy director did not follow that recommendation and fired him instead. Was that bowing to political pressure?

BEN FERGUSON, HOST, THE BEN FERGUSON SHOW: No. I think it's overwhelming evidence that anybody else that would have done something like this abuse of power in a police force would have been fired. I mean, if you saw politicians do this, they would have been massive pressure in investigations. This guy had his job longer than he should have.

Remember his own words, we're going to -- you know, we need an insurance policy if he is elected. We need -- we'll make sure it never happens, referring to him being elected with Donald Trump.


BURNETT: Now, keep in mine, the inspector general, Ben, I just want to point out did determine that those texts were not meant seriously and did not impact his professional work, right? I just want to point that out. You're right. He sent them. They are deeply troubling, but that was the conclusion of the inspector general report.

FERGUSON: Well, I would say the inspector general's report is absolutely wrong, and if you look at his mannerisms and his words and his actions and his arrogance when he was testifying before Congress, I would say that is not a man that jokes very often. That's a man that meant what he said.


FERGUSON: Let me finish this. This is a man who these text messages he thought will never be seen by the public ever. He clearly had hatred toward the president, wanted to stop him, didn't want him to be there, and wanted to have an investigation to make sure this man was impeached. They talk about these things.

You don't get to joke on that level when you're that high up in the FBI, and you certainly can't --


BURNETT: If all that's true, then the second that Bob Mueller when he found out about this and kicked him off the Mueller investigation -- the Russia investigation he would have ended it but that isn't at all what happened.

FERGUSON: Well, he was right to kick him off the investigation.

BURNETT: Joan, go ahead.

WALSH: Right, he took him off the investigation. You know, look, Ben, if you were going to use body language in your own gut to judge this man who the I.G. was very critical of.

FERGUSON: I'm judging by his words.

WALSH: You said a bunch of other things. He's not a guy that jokes very much. The I.G. was very clear they were very disturbed by the texting back and forth, but they found that the texting had no connection with decisions that he made either on the Clinton probe or on the Russia meddling investigation.

I also think, I mean, look, David Bowdich, the deputy attorney general has the right to do this, but it is very unusual. I looked at the 2016 Office of Professional Responsibility report. In that year, only one year they had -- they recommended discipline for 13 people and their recommendation was accepted in 11 cases.

FERGUSON: It's incredibly unusual, though --

WALSH: This is an unusual thing for him to do although it's within his rights to do it.


FERGUSON: Erin, it's unusual to joke about having insurance policy to make sure someone doesn't become president. It's unusual to joke about saying that we're going to make sure it never happens in becoming president. It's unusual to joke about --


BURNETT: Call me a skeptic you're just repeating things you've heard. I actually think it's not unusual at all. It happens all the time. I think it's highly inappropriate.

WALSH: If you were the New York office of the FBI, what they were probably saying about Hillary Clinton because there's such a bias up here against her, I just think --

FERGUSON: Really? How many times has she been in trouble with the FBI?


WALSH: I think everybody's text should be out on the table if this is going to happen to Peter Strzok.

BURNETT: So, you know, when the president, you know, was talking about Peter Strzok, he likes to talk about Lisa Page who was the one who exchanged the text messages with him, and also was having an affair. The president likes to use the word lover every single time.

[19:35:02] He talks about here. And this weekend, he drew attention to her physical appearance, referring to her as lovely, his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, and then the wife of the former associate deputy attorney general, Bruce Ohr, referring to his wife as his beautiful wife.

Joan, compliment or highly sexist?

WALSH: Highly sexist. Their looks, good or bad, have nothing to do with their professional standing and people who live in the 21st century know that you don't comment on things like that except if you want to diminish the woman and con descend to the woman. So, he's depicting these women as sirens or somebody that maybe drew someone astray and ignoring their professional capacity and it's gross.

BURNETT: Ben, on this one I'm going to as the moderator make it very clear, I do have a point of view and what he would type of these women, no matter what they did, is deeply insulting. But go ahead and take the other side if you want to take the other side. Is it OK to be commenting about them being beautiful or lovely?

FERGUSON: If he says someone's lovely it's a lot better than saying someone's ugly.


BURNETT: Why does appearance have anything to do with it, Ben? I don't understand why what she looks like is relevant.

FERGUSON: Let me say this.


FERGUSON: Look, I don't -- I wouldn't have put that in the tweet. I don't think he was being sexist. I think he was saying they were lovely in their appearance.

If you don't like that, I get your point. I'm fine with that.

WALSH: OK. Good.

BURNETT: All right. My goodness. Guys, thank you. We'll leave it at that. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

WALSH: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next, breaking news, Omarosa moments ago pressed on how she was able to get a recording device in the Situation Room. General James Clapper who is in that room responds.

Plus, did an airport employee uncover a dangerous loophole after hijacking a plane?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He just needs some help controlling his aircraft.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't need that much help. I played video games before.



[19:40:53] BURNETT: Omarosa Manigault Newman refusing to reveal how she snuck a recording device into the highly classified top secret Situation Room conference room. It is the highest security room. So, you've got the most important classified issues in this nation discussed, decisions made there like whether to kill Osama bin Laden, that all happens in that room.

A few moments ago when asked how she got a device past security and walked in there and just recorded everybody in there willy-nilly, here's how Omarosa responded.


OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE STAFFER: Because of the threats from the president and his legal team, I'm going to not share that information.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: You didn't have a pen or something?

MANIGAULT NEWMAN: But I will tell you that I'm so glad that I did it because no one -- no one would believe me if I didn't have that recording.


BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

General Clapper, thanks for your time.

All right. So, she did it. She just snuck it past security or I don't know, they didn't double check when you're supposed to leave your phone outside. I said perhaps a secure conference room in the country, if not much more than that.

How serious of a breach is this?

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, for me, it's very serious -- it's an egregious security violation to do that. And the system, at least the way it worked in the last administration, you know, the standard cell phone lockers outside the compounds of the Sit Room and everybody, you know, if they had one on their person deposit their cell phone in that locker. What I used to do is I'd leave it in my vehicle so I didn't risk

forgetting and carrying it in there. But it's actually pretty -- you're kind of on sort of the honor system where everybody knows not to do that. That is a very serious security violation.

What concerns me is how widespread that practice is in the White House and how many others bring cell phones or mobile devices.

BURNETT: You mean of bringing them in the room or actually recording conversations?


BURNETT: Yes. I mean, it does appear it was happening fairly widespread. I mean, this is something that former employees of the Trump Organization have told us. You know, it started with the president. He used to do it. That's why people were doing it.

But, I mean, does it amaze you that you're in that room and no one notices that she's even doing it at the time, or there's really no surveillance once you're in the room?

CLAPPER: Well, I mean, you don't get frisked. Normally, it's cabinet members and senior members of the government. So, they don't frisk you when you walk in the room. You're expected as a responsible member of the president's security team not to do that or his own White House team.

So, it's just kind of unthinkable that that would happen. And given what I understand or what looks to me to be a lot of paranoia in the White House, I can understand where people for their own protection for exactly the reason Omarosa said so that that could be a fairly widespread practice, which is a very, very dangerous security violation.

BURNETT: Very scary when you're saying you can see why it would happen even as you are saying how dangerous it is. You know, she also, General, talked about sharing more recordings with the special counsel Bob Mueller himself. Here's what she said about that.


MANIGAULT NEWMAN: If his office calls again --

MATTHEWS: Would you be a good witness?

NEWMAN: -- anything they want, I'll share anything that they want. I will certainly cooperate.


BURNETT: So there are a couple things that stood out to me there first, General. She said if his office calls again. Does that surprise you? That's news to us if true, that special counsel would have reached out to Omarosa.

Do you think she's relevant?

CLAPPER: Oh, yes, I think she's relevant and certainly, no, it doesn't surprise me that given what I've observed and how thorough and methodical the special counsel and his team are, that they would reach out to her. No, that doesn't surprise me at all.

BURNETT: I also want to ask you, I just had a chance to speak to Roger Stone on the show, General. And he says a whistle blower was telling his lawyers that the FISA application for Carter Page, you know, the one that was released about a week ago that was mostly redacted, but this whistle blower is saying hey, in the redacted parts, Roger Stone, your name is in there. And the fact that a FISA application was filed to surveil Roger Stone it was in there.

Now, if true, this would have been around the time you were there. I mean, do you have any sense, General, as to whether this allegation is true, that there was a FISA application to surveil Roger Stone?

CLAPPER: I do not have any direct knowledge of any FISA applications attended to the counterintelligence investigation since it involved U.S. persons. Contemporaneously, no, I wasn't aware of it. But again, it seems logical that at least the FBI would consider seeking an authorization for a FISA surveillance of Roger Stone.

BURNETT: All right. So, you didn't know about it but you wouldn't be surprised if it happened. I mean, on that note, General Mueller as we know, we've listed at least five we're aware of Stone's close associates that have been subpoenaed, right, or, you know, he has interviewed. Should Roger Stone himself be worried? Because he's not on that list and Mueller has not yet reached out to him directly.

CLAPPER: Well, if it were I, I'd be a little nervous frankly. He doesn't seem to be watching his interview with you. He feels he's not done anything wrong and all that.

But given the five associates of his that have been approached by the Mueller investigation team, yes, I'd be a little uneasy. And, you know, all these discussions about Mueller, we always have to remember they are way ahead of us. They know more, far more than we do.

BURNETT: All right. Well, General Clapper, I appreciate your time and for sharing your thoughts with me. Thanks.

CLAPPER: Thanks, Erin.

BURNETT: And next, what authorities are saying tonight about security at America's airports after an airport worker easily stole a commercial airliner which by the grace of God did not have passengers on board, all of whom would be dead if that was the case.

Plus, Jeanne Moos on the many faces of Rudy Giuliani.


[19:50:54] BURNETT: Tonight, Washington officials downplaying concerns about security, insisting that all protocols were followed before an airline employee stole a plane from the Seattle International Airport, which is frankly pretty terrifying if true.

Kyung Lah is OUTFRONT with the latest.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Dash Eight on one-six center, say your call sign. Who is the Dash Eight holding on runway one-six center.

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New audio from the first moment ground controllers realized they had a big problem rolling down the taxiway. A ground controller repeatedly tries and fails to make contact with a rogue Horizon Air Q400.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not even talking to him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He came flying out of the cargo area from Delta. You need to call and scramble now.


LAH: That's the moment officials call for military fighter jets to intercept 29-year-old Richard Russell, a Horizon Air ground crew worker who stole the plane without a pilot's license.

RICHARD RUSSELL: Hey, pilot guy, can this thing do a back flip do you think? I don't think that much of. I played the video games before.

LAH: After about an hour in the air, Russell makes clear he is not landing.

RUSSELL: Just a broken guy. Got a few screws loose, I guess. Never really knew it until now.

LAH: The plane crashed on a small island, exploding in dense woods, killing Russell. The rogue takeoff raises the stakes for concerns about so-called insider attacks that criminals working as airline employees might be planning to do much more harm next time. The airline CEO says Russell managed planes from the maintenance area by himself. He was in uniform, had the proper credentials and access.

Seattle airport officials say all security protocols were followed on the ground, security they say is tighter even than what is required by law.

COURTNEY GREGOIRE, PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSIONER: I think this is really truly one in a million experience, that doesn't mean we can't learn from it and ensure this type of tragedy doesn't happen again.

LAH: But it's not unprecedented. There are a handful of cases where ground crews have stolen planes. Most recently, in May 2003, an aircraft mechanic stole a 727 airliner from Angola. He and the plane were never seen again.

As far as suicide by pilot, the most recent was German Wings Flight 9525. The captain was locked out of the cockpit. The copilot crashed into a hillside, killing all 150 people aboard. And suspected as a pilot suicide case, MH-370, the flight that

mysteriously disappeared over the Indian Ocean.


LAH: Now there have been legislative steps regarding aviation employees. There was a bipartisan bill tightening employee checks. It passed the U.S. House. It stalled, though, in the Senate -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right, Kyung, thank you very much. Pretty terrifying to keep emphasize how all protocols were followed and this still happened.

Next, Jeanne Moos on Giuliani's unforgettable faces.


BURNETT: Here's Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You could watch Rudy Giuliani with the sound on.


MOOS: But who needs audio to appreciate the craziness of the faces of Rudy, especially those eyes he makes.

GIULIANI: Except no under oath. Shocked. You think they had one conversation in two years?

Stop the nonsense.

MOOS: One critic turned Giuliani's eyes against him. Rudy watching the replay of his own interview.

And if it isn't the bulging eyes, its boisterous laugh.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know it's not a crime to lie to news the media.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good source. A source that the president assails --


GIULIANI: But we don't like to fight. You know that.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Mayor, I used to watch your press conferences.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, good.

MOOS: On "SNL," Kate McKinnon picked up on the eyes and the laugh in her Rudy impression.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They even have programs in jail where you can get a real law degree.


MOOS: Rudy uses air intake and exhalation to express himself about words --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And certain things that are not done.

MOOS: And his gestures may leave you sighing.

GIULIANI: Poor little Hillary. We've got to be nice to her.

MOOS: One tweet compared him to a cast member of the monsters, which we only kind of sort of see.

GIULIANI: It's a rough game, by da da da da da.

MOOS: But there is one guy even Rudy can't rival when it comes to facial flexibility.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said he wouldn't want, quote, such a hothead with his finger on the nuclear codes.

MOOS: Bulging eyes will never overshadow --


MOOS: -- presidential astonishment. Who, me?

Jeanne Moos --




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you mean?

GIULIANI: You'll see.


MOOS: New York.


BURNETT: Well done, Jeanne. Thanks for joining us.

Anderson is next.