Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Counsel McGahn Said To Be Cooperating With Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Investigation; Trump Launches Fresh Attacks on Former CIA Director; Trump Criticizes for Revoking Security Clearance of John Brennan and Others; Manafort's Legal Team's Renewed Confidence as Jury Heads into 3rd Day of Deliberations; Father and Husband Killed Pregnant Mother and His Two Kids; Bomb Killing 40 Children in Yemen was Supplied by U.S.; Inside the First Honey Harvest at the VP Residence. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 18, 2018 - 16:00   ET

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

COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[16:00:00] ELLEN STACKABLE, CNN HERO: Many of the women that are incarcerated have been victims of some kind of abuse. We provide a safe place for them to overcome trauma and pain. So it is so much more than just writing. It becomes a therapeutic way for healing to occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: CNN was able to get extraordinary access for this story. To hear from these incredible voices, just go to CNNHeroes.com.

CNN ANNOUNCER: This is CNN "Breaking News."

Top of the hour. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thank you for joining us on this Saturday. Let's get straight to our "Breaking News."

The man who may know the most about President Trump's actions in the White House and the legality of them is said to be cooperating extensively with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

"The New York Times" reporting today that White House Counsel Don McGahn has given three voluntary interviews to investigators totalling around 30 hours in all. And to help put that into perspective, a former White Water investigator told "The New York Times" that having access like this to a president's attorney would, quote, "Be like having the keys to the kingdom."

CNN's Ryan Nobles is live near the president's golf resort in New Jersey where he is spending the weekend.

Ryan, this cooperation is incredibly unusual so why is McGahn cooperating and what could he know? RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's -- a bunch of different reasons why Don McGahn is involved in this situation at the level that he is involved in it. But essentially it started because Donald Trump's former criminal lawyers, those that were representing him in the special counsel probe decided that it was a good idea for Don McGahn to voluntary cooperate with the special counsel and not to invoke attorney-client privilege.

But when that happened according to "The New York Times," McGahn and his lawyer decided that there was some concern that perhaps McGahn was being set up to be perhaps become the fall guy for Donald Trump as it relates to the potential for obstruction of justice throughout the Mueller investigation. So that's why McGahn decided to fully cooperate and tell the facts as he knows them.

There are a few people in the Trump White House that know as much about everything that's going on over the past year and a half of Don McGahn. Here's just a list of some of the things that he has direct knowledge

of.

Of course, he was there and actually told Donald Trump that he would quit if the president made a move to fire the Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Also in January of 2017, McGahn became aware of the possibility that Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, had likely lied to the FBI. And he was also warned -- it was Don McGahn that was warned by the Attorney General Jeff Sessions that if the president made a move to fire the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, that Jeff Sessions would likely resign. So Don McGahn in the middle of all that.

And, of course, Don McGahn was there when the president made the very controversial decision to fire the FBI Director James Comey.

Now at this point, the president's legal team has not responded to this "New York Times" report. Sarah Sanders told "The New York Times" that they aren't concern at all with these interviews that McGahn has given because they feel that the president has nothing to hide.

But Rudy Giuliani did put out this tweet about an hour ago that doesn't specifically talk about "The New York Times" report. But Giuliani said this, quote, "Time for the Mueller investigation to file a report. We will release ours. Don't interfere with elections like Comey. The president had nothing to do with the Russians. He didn't obstruct an investigation. 1.4 million documents and 32 witnesses no privilege raised."

So there, Giuliani who has now become perhaps the chief spokesperson for the Trump legal team, making it clear that they want this investigation to wrap up.

One more point I will make on before I send it back to you is that I've been in contact with someone that has direct knowledge of the McGahn legal strategy as it relates to all of this. And this person told me that they would not agree with the insinuation in "The New York Times" report that somehow Don McGahn was providing what they described as incriminating information about Donald Trump. They say that he was just telling the truth as he was required to do.

So there's a lot of moving parts to this story, Ana. And, of course, we're still waiting for the president himself to respond to what the "New York Times" is reporting.

Ana?

CABRERA: Ryan Nobles, thanks for laying it out there for us.

Does this idea of a White House Counsel turned cooperating witness sound familiar to you? Maybe you're drawing parallels to Nixon's White House Counsel John Dean? Well, apparently, McGahn did too.

"The New York Times" writes, "Worried that Mr. Trump would ultimately blame him in the inquiry. Mr. McGahn told people he was determined to avoid the fate of the White House Counsel for President Richard N. Nixon. John W. Dean, who was imprisoned in the Watergate scandal."

Well, Mr. John Dean joins us now on the phone.

And, John, what's your reaction to all of this and this reporting that you were on McGahn's mind?

JOHN DEAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL FOR PRES. RICHARD NIXON (via telephone): Well, I think McGahn is doing the right thing. Post- Watergate they resolved a tricky question as to who is the client of the White House Counsel. And they decided to do it's not the president himself, but rather the office of the president.

[16:05:00] So he is -- he is doing the right thing in representing the office of the president, and there can be conflicts between the incumbent and the office.

Don did get wrong that I went to prison. I didn't. I was actually in the witness protection program for -- on and off -- from June of 1975 until January -- excuse me, 1973 June to January of 1975.

CABRERA: "The New York Times" quoting a former White Water investigator saying that this is like having the keys to the kingdom. Is that how you see it?

DEAN: Well, it certainly does give them a good guide as to where the problems may or may not be. As for clarifying remark that McGahn didn't in anyway incriminate the president, we don't know if that's true or not. Probably McGahn doesn't know if it's true or not. He gave them the knowledge he had, which was invaluable to an investigator.

CABRERA: Could the president have stepped in and prevented McGahn from talking openly?

DEAN: I think he could. He could do it on a couple basis. First, there would be the attorney-client privilege, which would cause the independent -- excuse me, the special counsel to have to test that and go to court and get it resolved. And there is no privilege for government attorneys. Personal privilege like that. So that would be the one issue.

Even probably a stronger basis would be executive privilege where the president can say that he doesn't want people who was helping him in his deliberation process and making his decisions testifying before other bodies like the Congress or the courts.

That's what Nixon did with his tapes. He said they were subject to executive privilege. The court said, well, that's not true when a grand jury sends a subpoena for them.

CABRERA: I want to read you a quote. Another one from "The Times" article about how McGahn and his lawyer feared McGahn was potentially being set up, they came up with their plan.

It says, he -- "McGahn and Mr. Burke, his lawyer, devised their own strategy to do as much as possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn did nothing wrong."

John, what do you make of this idea that McGahn was worried about being thrown under the bus?

DEAN: That's one I understand. That was what prompted me. I didn't -- I didn't talk to the media during Watergate or ever when I was in government. But when I have tried to get them to end the cover up and it was clear they weren't going to, but rather they were going to try to make me the scapegoat for the cover up, and the former Attorney General John Mitchell, the scapegoat for the boggled Watergate break in, I dictated a brief comment that my secretary read to "The Washington Post," "The A.P." and "The New York Times" to get the message through that I wasn't interested in being their scapegoat. So i can understand his thinking.

CABRERA: Do you think the president should be worried?

DEAN: You know, the investigation, were it as simple as Dowd and thought and had explained initially, the approach they were taking, it would have been over, but it is obviously much more complex.

They didn't have all the facts. I'm not sure that Trump himself has all the facts. Some of his people may have been unwitting in their cooperation with the Russians. Some of them might have been unaware of even how they were helping or assisting. So this has all be sorted out and counterintelligence investigations are not simple. They often go on for years.

CABRERA: All right, John Dean, thank you very much. We appreciate your insight. Thank you for joining us.

DEAN: My pleasure.

CABRERA: With us now, CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem and CNN political commentator and former Trump Adviser Steve Cortes. Juliette, let me move the discussion forward to another topic this weekend. We're talking about ex-CIA Chief John Brennan. The president tweeting about him, kicking up a notch his sort of rivalry or attack against John Brennan, writing this, "Has anyone looked at the mistakes that John Brennan made while serving as CIA director? He will go down as easily the worst in history. And since getting out, he has become nothing less than a loudmouth, partisan, political hack who cannot be trusted with the secrets to our country."

Juliette, your thoughts?

[16:10:05] JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I just -- you know, I think you should believe the president, which is he fired John Brennan because he didn't like what John Brennan was saying. He was a loud mouth.

There is no specific allegation that Brennan released classified information. No specific information that our national security was threatened.

And if you look at what Donald Trump says, we know why he fired John Brennan. So that's disturbing in the sense -- to the extent that Donald Trump cares so little for our national security and sort of the legacy, right, that men like John Brennan carry forward to help those now in power, right?

That it's -- Trump's national security is essentially his own security. But I think it also shows just the political nature of what this White House has done with national security.

The fact that Sarah Sanders and the communications team are now in charge of when they're going to decided, right, when the next person loses their security clearance suggests that it has nothing to do with the national security staff and everything to do with distractions not only about Omarosa, but obviously the story you were just talking about with John Dean. These are not good stories for the White House in a very, very deep and existential way right now.

CABRERA: Steve, I don't understand why the president continues to tweet about John Brennan. He already took away his security clearance.

STEVE CORTES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right.

CABRERA: They came out with their reasoning for why that happened. Why is he continuing to attack him? What is he trying to accomplish?

CORTES: Well, I'm glad he did in this case and I'll tell you why, because he's harkening back to his record as CIA director, which had nothing to do with President Trump. But when he was CIA director, and this is not my opinion. This is by his own admission.

"Our CIA was hacking into the computers of the Senate Oversight Committee, who was charge with overseeing his very agency."

The fact that he and he first lied about it. He first tried to cover up. Then had to admit it and apologize for it. He paid no price. Neither professionally, nor criminally. To me that was a constitutional and separation of powers violation. That is so absurd. He should have been fired immediately, if not prosecuted and put in prison in my opinion.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: OK, but that's -- OK, so I get what you're saying. That was in the past. That was dealt with at the time as you mentioned.

CORTES: OK.

CABRERA: It was exposed. So answer the question, though, as to why this president continues to go after Brennan. What is he trying to accomplish --

(CROSSTALK)

CORTES: But that's what the president talked about --

(CROSSTALK)

KAYYEM: Did you just say --

(CROSSTALK)

CORTES: What the president talked about today in his tweet -- what the president talked about today in his tweet was his past actions as CIA director.

And by the way, he was absolutely -- I mean, it was criminal what he did as CIA director. That is relevant. It's one reason that he doesn't deserve clearance today.

The more important reason, though, is that since leaving the CIA, he and others including Clapper and Hayden, they have decided in the past former intelligence chiefs used to maintain a certain protocol when they left office.

They would join think tanks, universities, do serious work. Instead all of them have done what I do, which is become a partisan cable news political pundit.

Now I don't have a problem with that because obviously I do it myself. But you know what, you have then surrendered the right to have the privileges and prestige of being a former intelligence head.

You are now a political hack. You are now a partisan operative, and as such, you lose the privilege of security clearance.

CABRERA: Juliet?

KAYYEM: So that was a lot to absorb. And I understand why you're saying that because there's no rational justification for what Donald Trump did.

I mean, you began with Brennan not even, you know, being in jail. I mean, it's too kookoo. Let me just like go to like the facts here.

So the facts are these. This White House is determining who's going to lose national security clearances based on their own concern about whether they're upset and, you know, whether they get criticized.

And the fact that we know this has nothing to do with national security is the fact this was done at a time when the White House admits that it was trying to distract from bad stories.

So if you're that concerned about national security, one would guess that you would not let Mike Hayden go on TV, you know, for the next couple weeks, you know, if you're that concerned.

So we all know that this is just a fiction that people who are proxies for the Trump White House get on TV. And what they do is they create a justification after the fact because Donald Trump has told us why he did it.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Let me just read the official reasons the president gave for revoking the security clearance of Brennan.

Here's what the White House says, "Making an unfounded and outrageous allegations. Wild outbursts on the internet and television, lying, making frenzied commentary."

By these standards, Steve, shouldn't the president have his clearance revoked as well?

CORTES: No. Here's why. He was elected by the people of the United States. None of these people were elected. So it's a crucial difference. There's a crucial distinction there.

He was elected to be their boss, essentially. Whether they're currently employed or formerly employed and he is in charge of their security clearances. And we elected him. We hired him. The American people hired him to do that job.

[16:15:00] When they leave that job, and it's in a gust position to be in a position of authority over our intelligence services. When you leave that job and you go and you become a partisan cable news hack, and by the way -- listen, i'll call myself a hack, OK.

When you become a partisan cable news operative, you can no longer have the prestige and privilege of having security clearance to this country. You can't. And all of these men -- and by the way, I don't want to just pick on Brennan. Clapper also lied in front of America, lied to the Congress --

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Right. I mean, you said that. You said that. You said that. But the bottom line here is there was -- there has been a unanimous response right now from the former intelligence officials who have come out and they have said that this kind of behavior, this relocation of these security clearances for a political reason has never been done and should never be done --

(CROSSTALK)

CORTES: Because they've never been this political.

(CROSSTALK)

Because former heads of intelligence, Ana, were never political the way these men are. That's what I'm saying.

You didn't see William Webster leave office and then become a cable news partisan operative.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: But they're saying that should not be the standard for revoking security clearances.

Juliette, I'll give you the last word.

(CROSSTALK)

CORTES: I'm saying it's very relevant.

KAYYEM: Let me -- Steve, you need to be quiet because you made your point. He wants Brennan in jail, which is like beyond. But let me just be clear here.

CORTES: Really?

KAYYEM: That what is happening now is the politicization of not just John Brennan of 40 years. The man who sign -- the men and women who signs at this document. What we see now is a bare -- I mean, Steve, even sounds very, very panicked, very nervous, irrational, throw everyone in jail attitude. I don't know what's behind that. All I know is keep your cool. People are allowed to say what they want to say. No allegations that John Brennan did anything to disrupt national security. In fact, he's a hero regarding Bin Laden. The men and women who signed those documents, (INAUDIBLE), who are right in the office, are people that you should be proud that they have served you.

And now you're saying they go into jail. So best of luck to you on that theory. But the rest of us know exactly why Donald Trump and, Steve, for that matter, why you're doing this. This is not rational talk anymore. This is just something else is going on here.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Steve, I'll give you like 10 seconds. We got to end this. I'll give you the last word.

(CROSSTALK)

CORTES: He's not rational. He has chosen to become a partisan cable news celebrity, and when you choose to become a partisan cable news pundit, you no longer have the prestige or privilege of national security code, particularly when -- particularly when you previously violated the law and hack into our own Senate's computers.

Yes, correct. Separation of powers, constitutional crisis.

CABRERA: All right. Steve Cortes, Juliette Kayyem, thank you, guys, for that passionate discussion.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

CABRERA: The jury in the trial of former campaign Chairman Paul Manafort continues to deliberate. They delivered a curious note to the judge yesterday. Why Manafort's attorneys say this could be a good sign for their client. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The best comedian who happens to be clean is Brian Regan. But when he would get down with his show, no one in the audience was like, I can't believe he didn't curse. He is clean not because he did it for corporate money or to be more appealing for television. He did it because his sense of humor rings clean. So we want Brian Regan to be clean. Although it would be funny to see him go off the rails.

Just get him drunk.

BRIAN REGAN, COMEDIAN: Some law firms deal with DUI, then aggravated DUI.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you know why I pulled you over?

Yes, yes, I know why you pulled me over.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Here's the thing about Regan. Despite someone not cussing, it doesn't mean that you can't sense that there's an edge. He's a quintessential comedian's comedian. Every comedian, he is their favorite. And it's funny because your mom might have never heard of him, but he would be her favorite comedian, too.

REGAN: Ding, ding, ding, yes!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's normally the sign of a clean comedian, one that the audience wants to embrace.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:23:31] CABRERA: The jury is heading into its third day of deliberations in the trial of former Trump campaign Chair Paul Manafort. The judge says he has received threats over this case. Threats that make him reluctant to publicly release the jurors' names after the verdict. Manafort is accused of 18 criminal counts including tax evasion and bank fraud.

Joining us now, criminal defense attorney and CNN legal analyst Page Pate.

Page, do you think jurors' names should be kept secret from the public in light of the threats Judge Ellis has received?

PAGE PATE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Ana, that's probably a good idea in a case like this. I mean, not only is this a very high profile criminal case, but obviously there are strong feelings on both political sides of the aisle about what should happen to Mr. Manafort and how that may affect the president down the road. So the judge in a federal, criminal trial always has the discretion to keep the jurors' names from the public.

And so it's not an unusual step in a case like this and probably it's better safe than sorry because who knows, especially with all the language you hear sometimes from the White House, and you even hear the president talking about what a good guy Paul Manafort is. You would not want somebody to hear that and then take some sort of action that could be very dangerous to the jury and their families.

CABRERA: Court watchers are all trying to read the tea leaf since the deliberations began. The jury has come back with a few questions including asking how you define reasonable doubt.

What does that tell you about where their heads are at?

[16:25:00] PATE: You know, Ana, it's always difficult to know in a case like this. I mean, I tried a federal criminal case just last month, and we had some what I thought were very favorable questions from the jury, but ultimately they found against my client.

So what I think is important and I think we can gather from these questions is they are not jumping to the quick conclusion that I think the government wanted them to. He's made a lot of money, he spent a lot of money, and he didn't report it. I mean, that's an easy case.

But what they're doing is going through the evidence very carefully. Now maybe one juror had that question or maybe the entire jury wanted a better definition of reasonable doubt. But unfortunately the judge really can't give it. It's a doubt based on reason and common sense. So there's not a lot more that the jury can have as far as a definition.

CABRERA: 12 jurors total. How hard is it to reach a unanimous verdict on 18 charges like this?

PATE: It can be very difficult, especially if the case has political issues or other emotional issues that are at play. And they have to go through the indictment count by count, so it's quite possible right now that they have already reached a decision on some or maybe even most of these counts and perhaps the last bit of deliberations are going into next week maybe over some of the remaining counts.

And that's one thing about a federal case, we don't know where they are. We don't know if they are split, whether they've reached a verdict on some counts, and the judge is not supposed to inquire. So it will be a mystery going into Monday how much longer they'll be out.

CABRERA: And as you point out, the president is talking about Paul Manafort calling him a good man, saying this trial is sad. Let me remind everyone the jury is not sequestered. Could the president's words influence the outcome?

PATE: I think so, Ana. In fact, I would be surprised if someone on the jury didn't hear indirectly that the president made those comments. And, remember, Manafort's defense team only needs one, one very strong Trump supporter who believes that the government selectively prosecuted this case because Manafort worked for trump.

Even the judge indicated that this case may be more about who Manafort worked for than what Manafort did. So if that language gets back to one member of this jury who's a strong Trump supporter, you could end up with a hung jury and a mistrial.

CABRERA: Page Pate, we'll continue to follow.

Thank you. Always good to have you with us.

PATE: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: Frightening moments at a high school football game after gunfire sends players and parents running for their lives. And police say this wasn't random.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:00] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Just a week into the new school year, gunfire at a high school football game sending students and fans screaming, running for their lives.

It happened in South Florida in an area still raw following last year's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Police say two men were shot, neither are students. The victims are both in the hospital, but no word on their condition at this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADAM HERBST, STUDENT WHO WITNESSED SHOOTING: I heard the gunshots. We ran. And then we tried to get to the bus. We ran into the bus and when we get into the bus, got on the bus, started shooting again. And then we got out. I opened up the emergency door and just ran all the way here.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And you had to climb fences to get over?

HERBST: Yes, I'm all cut up from the fences and everything, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: No one is in custody. We don't know a motive for the shooting, but authorities say this was not a random act of violence.

There are new clues as to how two young girls and their pregnant mom were brutally murdered in Colorado. They're alleged killer, their own father and husband, Chris Watts. On Tuesday, he stood on his porch and publicly pleaded that his missing wife and children be returned.

Less than 24 hours later, he was arrested for their murders. Police found the body of Watts' wife, Shanann, on the property of an oil company where he used to work. They found the bodies of their daughters, 4-year-old Bella and 3-year-old Celeste in oil storage tanks.

Court documents reveal Watts may have strangled some of the victims. From the outside, everything seems so normal. Just weeks earlier, Shanann Watts posted a video announcing her pregnancy. She also posted a video of their daughter singing about her dad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: My daddy is a hero. He helps me grow up fast. He helps me (INAUDIBLE). He reads me books. He ties my shoes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Why Watts may have brutally murdered his family is still a mystery. Forensic psychologist Cheryl Arutt is joining me now.

What kind of person, Cheryl, could potentially kill not only his pregnant wife, but his two young children? What do we know about that person's state of mind?

CHERYL ARUTT, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: Ana, this is always hard to believe and people get really shocked, but the truth is that the majority of the time when women are murdered, they are murdered by someone they know, often a boyfriend or husband.

So this is actually one of the most frequent scenarios that we see with a murder of a woman. The fact that she was murdered when she was pregnant and that he killed his daughters as well allegedly, this has a quality of, you know, some of the research I've done. There are some indicators that she may have been planning to leave him. I know they had financial issues. Very often there's a mentality of if I can't have you, no one can, and an element of power and control.

[16:35:00] So we -- there's a lot that we need to discover about this case, but I wish I could say that this was an extremely uncommon scenario. And, you know, you see something that looks so beautiful on Facebook.

CABRERA: Yes.

ARUTT: People curate how -- they put the best of their lives out there, but clearly this family was really struggling with some very dark things. CABRERA: And when we see all these beautiful pictures and all these smiles and the text messages, the videos that have come to light of Chris Watts and his wife and kids seemingly so happy when you see him actually as a dad, as a husband. I want to play another clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

CHRIS WATTS: I like that shirt. Really?

SHANANN WATTS: Really.

C. WATTS: That's awesome.

S. WATTS: Oh, my goodness. Come give me a hug. I love you, girl.

BELLA WATTS: I want to give the baby a hug.

S. WATTS: You want to give the baby a hug? I love you, Bella. Give me a kiss.

B. WATTS: Mommy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Cheryl, is it possible there were no red flags and that maybe he just snapped?

ARUTT: You know, I'm thinking about this and I'm thinking about the references he made in his interview before the bodies were found, talking about having a doorbell camera and having cameras around the house and this sort of odd, cool kind of reflection about it in a shallow, superficial way. And a tell where he was speaking about his daughter, Bella, and he said she was going to start kindergarten.

He used the past tense when she hadn't been found. And that's something that we see in forensic science when that person does know that that person isn't coming back.

And i don't know, but I think we may find that this was more planned than we think.

CABRERA: Court documents suggest that some members of this family were strangled and that the little girls' bodies were found inside tanks filled with crude oil.

What do you make of these disturbing new details?

ARUTT: I think he was trying to hide the evidence. I think this was a place that he was familiar with. He used to work in this setting, and I think he was hoping perhaps that the oil could do enough harm to the bodies, that they wouldn't be able to be identified, but they have identified them.

CABRERA: Cheryl Arutt, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate your expertise.

ARUTT: Thank you so much.

CABRERA: Unsettling details about the role of the U.S. in the bus attack in Yemen that killed dozens of children. A CNN exclusive report after this. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:23] CABRERA: Now to a CNN exclusive report on a deadly school bus attack in Yemen.

We have new evidence the bomb that killed 40 school children last week was supplied by the United States.

Senior international correspondent Nima Elbagir has more. And a warning to viewers, this report contains disturbing images.

CNN's Nima Elbagir reports and we warn you this contains disturbing images.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIMA ELBAGIR, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Every day Isid Al-Homran visits the graveyard where his two little boys are buried. Today he brought their five-year-old brother along. He is all he said has left.

ISID AL-HOMRAN, FATHER OF CHILD KILLED IN BOMBING (through interpreter): People were screaming out the names of their children. I tried to tell the women it couldn't be true, but then a man ran through the crowd shouting that a plane had struck the children's bus.

ELBAGIR: On August 9th, Isid son, Osama, filmed his class on the long awaited school trip, a reward for graduating summer school. Within hours, it had all gone horribly wrong.

A plane from the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition struck a bus carrying them. Dozens died. Some of the bodies were so mutilated identification became impossible. All that's left are the scraps of school books, warped metal and a single backpack.

Eyewitnesses tell CNN this was a direct hit in the middle of a busy market.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I saw the bomb hit the bus. It blew it into those shops and three bodies clear to the other side of those buildings. We found bodies scattered everywhere. There was a severed head inside the bomb crater.

ELBAGIR: This video of the shrapnel was filmed in the aftermath of the attack and sent to CNN by contacting Sada (ph). A cameraman working for CNN subsequently filmed these images for us.

Munitions experts tell CNN this was a U.S.-made mark MK-82 bomb weighing in at half a ton. The first five digits there are the cage number, the commercial and government entity number. This number here denotes Lockheed Martin, one of the top U.S. defense contractors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're at the forefront of design that makes this real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ELBAGIR: This particular MK-82 is a pave way, a laser guided precision bomb. It's targeting accuracy up to a particular point of pride for Lockheed Martin. But with an arms deal with Saudi Arabia sanctioned and contracted out by the U.S. government. So why does the matter? Because the devastation inflicted by the MK-82 is all too familiar in Yemen.

[16:45:00] In March, 2016, a strike on a market using this similarly laser guided 2,000 pound MK-84 killed 97 people. In October, 2016, another strike on a funeral hall killed 155 people and wounded hundreds more. Then the bus attack on August 9th, where they're still counting the dead.

The U.S. doesn't just sell arms to the coalition in its battle against the Iranian-backed rebel Houthi militias. It provides intelligences, help with targeting procedures, mid-air refueling. President Obama blocked sales of precision-guided military technology to Saudi Arabia over human rights concerns. Six months later under the newly-elected Trump administration, then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, overturned the ban.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: Look, there is a balance that needs to be struck. The president also noted that the Saudis have a right to defend themselves. They were being attacked from across the southern border by Houthis who were being aided by Iran and were launching rockets and missiles. And what I would tell you is that we certainly had under the Obama administration deep concerns about the ways the Saudis were targeting. And we acted only those concerns by limiting the kind of munitions that they were being given and stridently trying to argue for them to be more careful and cautious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ELBAGIR: Saudi Arabia denies targeting civilians and defends the incident as a legitimate military operation and a retaliatory response to a Houthi ballistic missile from the day before.

When asked to comment on CNN's evidence, the coalition spokesperson Turki Al-Malki tells us the coalition is taking all practical measures to minimize civilian casualties. Every civilian casualty is a tragedy, adding that it would not be appropriate for the coalition to comment further while the investigation is underway.

The U.S. wouldn't comment on the origins of the bomb, but the State Department is calling for a Saudi-led investigation which the U.S. defense secretary supports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES MATTIS, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Wars are always tragic, but we've got to find a way to protect the innocent in the midst of this one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ELBAGIR: Osama's cell phone footage is all that his father has left of the two boys, their last happy moments.

Osama's father isn't optimistic that an investigation will change anything.

In a country where loss has become common place, they aren't even praying for justice anymore, just peace.

Nima Elbagir, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:20] CABRERA: You don't see this every day. A delicate rescue operation caught on dash cam video. The sheriff's office in Lake Tahoe responded to a call about a bear trapped in a parked car. It's that silver car to the right of the screen there.

Watch how a deputy is able to set it free.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to try and get him out because he's not happy at all. I'm going to try and break out your back -- the back window with a bean bag.

(GUNSHOT)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: There he goes.

So how did the bear get in there? Yes, bears are capable of opening unlocked doors. So police say this is a reminder to always remove food from your car and lock it, especially when you are in bear country.

This next story will have any bear drooling. Today, August 18th is National Honey Bee Day. And while these days Washington, D.C., is too often divided by politics, Second Lady Karen Pence is celebrating one very sweet success.

CNN takes you to the vice president's residence for its first ever honey harvest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAREN PENCE, SECOND LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Bees are doing great. We are proud to report after a year that we're up to about 60,000 bees now. So we've about doubled our population.

Today, we are harvesting the honey for the first time, and so what we will do is the bee keeper will come in and he will take out frames. I know the bees do get a little upset at first. When you have a lot of rain or you have a lot of drought, that's going to affect how much honey that you're able to harvest. We want to make sure the bees have the honey that they need. We only take the honey that is extra.

One of the reasons that we wanted to bring a beehive to the vice president's residence was because we wanted to help our bee population, and we do have colony collapse disorder.

It was important to us to do what we could. A lot of our crops are highly dependent on bees to pollinate. We will transport down to the kitchen in the residents.

This is our centrifuge. We'll stick two frames in at a time and crank it until all the honey comes out. And falls down into the collection bin. We have tiny two-ounce little bears, and we will put all of the honey into those little bottles and give those to people when they come visit the residence.

Delicious.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: The man who may know the most about President Trump's actions in the White House and the legality of them is now said to be cooperating extensively with Robert Mueller.

That's straight ahead live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:54:40] CNN ANNOUNCER: This is CNN "Breaking News."

CABRERA: Hello on this Saturday. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

We begin with breaking news. We don't know if there was collusion, but apparently there is cooperation. Tonight "The New York Times" is reporting that White House Counsel Don McGahn has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about episodes at the core of the investigation into whether President Trump obstructed justice including some that investigators would not have learned otherwise.