Return to Transcripts main page
Trump Proposes DACA Deal for His Border Wall Funding; Furloughed Worker Shares Impacts of Historic Shutdown; Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump and Cohen May Have Discussed Testimony; Immigration Laws; Oscars; CNN Heroes; Politics; Italy Elections; Second Amendment Rights; Reality TV; Entertainment. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired January 20, 2019 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:16] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, again. Thanks so much for joining me this Sunday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.
We are in day 30 of the longest partial U.S. government shutdown in history, and still no end in sight. President Trump is on the attack, blaming Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after his proposal to end the shutdown was shot down before he even made the announcement. Pelosi called it unacceptable and a nonstarter. Now lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are weighing in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), BUDGET COMMITTEE: Yes, it represents progress, not perfection. I talked to the president about this issue for about an hour last week. And if you bring a plan to him that doesn't include a wall, it's dead as 4:00.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D), BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEES: Let me just also make clear that what the president proposed yesterday, increasing border security, looking at TPS, looking at the Dreamers, I'll use that as a starting point, but you've got to start by opening the government. What we cannot do, and I've actually had Republicans as well recognize this, is that we cannot reward the kind of behavior of hostage taking.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: President Trump's proposals already being called dead on arrival by Democrats. He is asking for $5.7 billion for his border wall in exchange for three years of extended protection for eligible Dreamers and a three-year extension of temporary protected status for immigrants. It also includes more border agents, immigration judge teams, and money for humanitarian assistance. But with funding for the wall.
It doesn't look like Democrats will bite. House Democrats will propose adding $1 billion in border-related spending. The money would go towards additional infrastructure at points of entry and more immigration judges.
And as politicians play the blame game, real people are feeling the impacts, caught in the middle of this mess. 800,000 federal workers, most of them still not getting paid, many still working. They are struggling to pay bills and feed their families.
With me now, Elaina Plott, White House correspondent for the Atlantic, and Ron Brownstein, senior editor for the Atlantic.
Good to see both of you.
All right. So Senator Schumer responded earlier to the president's offer, and this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), MINORITY LEADER: Unfortunately the president keeps putting forward one-sided, ineffective remedies. There's only one way out, open up the government.
Mr. President, open up the government, and then Democrats and Republicans can have a civil discussion and come up with bipartisan solutions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Republican senators could begin voting on the president's proposal as early as Tuesday. Democrats say it's dead on arrival.
So, Ron, you know, is Trump actually offering any incentive for Dems to come to the table?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think this specific proposal offers an incentive, but I think it does set in motion a process that could lead you somewhere. I mean, this proposal itself is, as I like to call it, hostage-taking squared. First of all, he is -- you know, he has two programs that he has unilaterally moved to end, DACA and the temporary protection.
And he -- and then he has closed the government on top of that. And he says, well, then I will extend the programs and I will reopen the government that I closed if you give me the money for something that 60 percent of the country consistently opposes, which is the border wall. And I think for obvious reasons that isn't very attractive to Democrats. But I do think this does require Democrats to begin to think about what, if anything, they would accept as the price for a wall.
Don't forget that as recently as last February, all but three Democratic senators voted for a package that would have included funding for the wall in return for a permanent status. For a --
WHITFIELD: And the figure was much lower. It was like a million and a half, billion dollars.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, no, it was actually -- no, it was actually $25 billion in the Senate version. It was much more. It was a trust fund over an extended period. But that was for permanent -- a pathway to citizenship for a much broader definition of Dreamers, about 2 million people.
So one last quick point, Fred. You know, we've been -- George Bush almost passed immigration reform in 2006. He passed it through the Senate bipartisan basis, House Republicans wouldn't take it up. Barack Obama passed it through the Senate on a bipartisan basis in 2013. House Republicans wouldn't take it up.
The idea that we are going to solve this while federal workers are under the point of a gun after really 15 years of stalemate between the parties is really absurd on its face. And the notion that this kind of extended debate that we've been having in the country, they should be held hostage to that, really kind of doesn't pass the -- you know, kind of the laugh test after we watched how difficult it has been to reach consensus on these underlying issues for so many years.
WHITFIELD: So, Elaina, what is the area then where Democrats are willing, you know, to budge? I mean, is it an issue of the figure for the wall where they're malleable, or perhaps is it an issue of permanent wall for more permanent path for DACA recipients but, you know, saying a temporary extension versus a permanent wall, you know, that they're not willing to budge?
[16:05:16] ELAINA PLOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE ATLANTIC: That is the pressure point right now, Fred. What I'm hearing from Democratic sources in both the House and the Senate is that if the conversation shifts to permanent protections for DACA recipients, TPS recipients, and then that's something they feel they might can get on board with. But where Republicans are really happy right now is that it's not so much the substance of Trump's proposal that they're rallying around but rather the notion that quite publicly the White House has been the first to try and break this stalemate by way of a very kind of public, you know, theatrical offer.
And they feel it's now on the onus of Democrats to take this and either make a counteroffer or sign on with Trump's proposal because, you know, you've got Senator Mitt Romney, you've got Representative Mark Meadows, two people quite different on the ideological spectrum in the Republican Party, saying that they support what the White House is putting forth. So if you can't get seven Democrats on board to vote for cloture and get this vote on the floor, I do think politically this reflects worse on Democrats than it does on Republicans.
WHITFIELD: And this again is an example of the White House, you know, trying to shape the narrative to say the White House has been willing to make an offer, to make concessions. This is what the vice president had to say earlier about who has been involved in the president's latest proposal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What the president directed us to do, our negotiation team, was to reach out with rank- and-file Democrats in the House and in the Senate. And what the president presented yesterday really is an effort to bring together ideas from both political parties. (END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right. So, Elaina, you heard the vice president say, you know, rank-and-file Democrats have been invited to the table. Congressman, you know, Benny Thompson earlier said, you've got to reach out to the leadership, you know, of the Democratic Party. So then where, you know, are we seeing the fruition of the art of the deal, the president being the great negotiator? Where is that?
PLOTT: We're not seeing that on behalf of this president at all. And one reason I was told that Democrats were unilaterally opposed out of the gate on this offer from the White House was that they weren't consulted at all. This is not something that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were huddling with Vice President Pence and Jared Kushner on. Rather, what they had been told over the last two, three weeks is that the president wouldn't entertain anything related to DACA when it comes to finding a compromise to reopen the government and solve what he believes is a humanitarian crisis at the border.
So in many ways, they were caught flat-footed when earlier this week Vice President Pence told reporters the president is not interested in making DACA part of these talks to suddenly seeing Donald Trump at the podium saying this is part of his, you know, grand bargain.
WHITFIELD: And so, Ron, does it appear as though the president is more willing, however, to be influenced by conservative commentators, say, Anne Coulter or even Republican Iowa Congressman Steve King, who have tweeted their criticisms --
WHITFIELD: -- about, you know, his latest offer?
BROWNSTEIN: Right, well, look, I think the answer is yes in that the president and everyone in the White House, I think, recognizes that if there is going to be any conversation with Democrats about accepting money for a wall, that the minimum on his side is going to be a permanent solution for the Dreamers. Some pathway toward legal status or citizenship.
WHITFIELD: Somewhere down the line.
BROWNSTEIN: And the president today in response to the criticism, you know, on the right made clear that that is not on his agenda and that there's only so far that he can go. And I kind of go back to the point from before, which is that, you know, look, this is why we have been fighting about this issue almost nonstop for nearly 15 years. And the thought that you're going to make 800,000 federal employees go without pay and all of these critical services face escalating strain on the idea that you're going to solve it suddenly in three weeks after 15 years, just seems to me, you know, completely irresponsible and almost a separate point from the underlying substance of how far you go on the Dreamers versus how much money you give on the wall.
WHITFIELD: But why is the president not responsive to that? I mean, isn't that federal workers saying where is the empathy? BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
WHITFIELD: Why are you using us as pawns?
BROWNSTEIN: Right. Because, look, I mean, this is a president -- there are two reasons. I mean, I think, one, because he is a president who does not accept, you know, the norms of presidential behavior. But I think even more important is that this is what happens when you have a president who abandons even the aspiration of representing a majority of the country. I mean, his view has always been that so long as he keeps his core supporters with him, that he is fine politically. And he has evinced very little interest in the needs or concerns of voters outside of his coalition.
And I think this is a reminder, this whole episode, where, you know, 60 percent of the country opposes the wall almost, and roughly 60 percent opposes the shutdown, how quickly a president can drift into the kind of --
WHITFIELD: And more than half blaming president for the shutdown.
[16:10:05] BROWNSTEIN: Yes, yes. If you don't even have the goal of maintaining majority support, you can get pretty far off track pretty fast, and I think this shutdown has showed us that.
WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there for now.
Ron Brownstein, Elaina Plott, thanks so much to both of you. Appreciate it.
PLOTT: Thanks, Fred.
WHITFIELD: So this shutdown has real impacts for thousands of people. Pilots warning of security risks. TSA workers who keep our airports safe are calling out sick. Attorneys are warning of slowing crime investigations. Federal workers say they are entering survival mode. And prison workers say this is a recipe for disaster.
Joining me right now, Stephen Ching, a furloughed federal -- subcontractor, rather, for NASA. He is an electrician and also the vice president of his local union.
Stephen Ching, thank you so much for joining me. So describe how has --
STEPHEN CHING, FURLOUGHED FEDERAL SUBCONTRACTOR FOR NASA: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: -- the past 30 days been for you?
CHING: It has been very difficult, and not only for myself but for the other 700 workers that I work with down there. But I want America to understand that when they shut the gates at NASA, there was over 8,000 people affected. It's not only just workers. It's scientists. It's support staff. It's vendors. It's across the board affecting the community down in Titusville and Cocoa, and the Brevard area.
WHITFIELD: And talk to me about, you know, some scientists who are working on projects, have experiments, and how the interruption, for example, you know, of government being shut down, how, you know, that really sets back very vital work.
CHING: Yes, it does. And we have basically skeleton crews down there that are doing what they deem as essential work. So probably 98 percent of the staff down there that we work with is out on furlough, many of them are husband and wife so they are affected. Their children are affected. I mean, across the board. This really is very unnecessary.
WHITFIELD: So then when you heard the president's address yesterday, his major announcement on here is an idea to get government up and running again, were you encouraged, or are you further discouraged?
CHING: Well, personally I think all sides of the aisle, both Democrats and Republicans, and the White House need to put aside this issue, reopen the government, and get these federal employees back to work.
These are vital services from the Bureau of Prisons to the FBI to NASA. This is far-reaching. I don't think America understands how far-reaching this is. When you take and you furlough all these people, all these subcontractors, all these vendors and so on and so forth, it's far-reaching. This is true trickle-down economics.
When you don't have any money, you're not going and putting gas in the car. You don't have money for your rent. You don't have money for food. It's far-reaching.
WHITFIELD: So, Stephen, express to me how confusing it is to hear that while the president and lawmakers are saying we're going to try and deal with this immigration issue, why you're not hearing that government is going to reopen while separately this argument can be made, this budget can be, you know, settled while government is up and running.
CHING: Absolutely. I think anybody that works in the federal sector would tell you, let's go ahead and reopen this government and then push on with the discussion. I don't think anybody in America doesn't realize that we do have immigration reform that needs to be spoken and talked about. And that's the way our government has worked for 220 years whether you're on one side of the aisle or the other.
You come together, you make your ways and means known, and you sit there and negotiate and you go forward with what is best for America as a whole. And all we see now is this stagnation and federal workers and subcontractors being held hostage.
WHITFIELD: Who are you blaming for this stagnation?
CHING: I really don't want to get into the political realm. I, as a voice, am trying to sit there and be a voice of reason to both sides to sit there and say, hey, let's get together. We know what we have to do. Let's go ahead, reopen the government, get these people back to work, and then have this discussion. That's the way America and the government is supposed to work.
WHITFIELD: Stephen Ching, thank you so much. And of course, we are grateful for your public and civil service.
CHING: Thank you.
[16:15:01] WHITFIELD: And we're wishing you and everyone the best who want things to get up and running again.
All right. Still ahead, President Trump's attorney opening up. New scrutiny after revealing Trump may have talked to his former fixer, Michael Cohen, about his testimony to Congress. Will that amount to obstruction of justice? We'll discuss next.
WHITFIELD: Welcome back. President Trump's personal attorney is trying to split hairs on what constitutes obstruction of justice. Rudy Giuliani refuting reports the president instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, but also admitting the president may have talked with Cohen in detail about what exactly he was planning to say in the testimony.
[16:20:01] Giuliani spoke at length with our Jake Tapper on CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "STATE OF THE UNION": Did President Trump or anyone on the Trump team talk to Michael Cohen about his congressional testimony before he gave congressional testimony or after he gave congressional testimony?
RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: I can tell you -- first of all, I wasn't the lawyer at the time.
GIULIANI: Michael Cohen's lawyers reviewed his testimony with him.
TAPPER: Yes, but did --
GIULIANI: They I'm sure --
TAPPER: Did President Trump or anyone --
GIULIANI: No, no, no. Let me answer the question.
GIULIANI: As far as I know President Trump did not have discussions with him, certainly had no discussions with him in which he told him or counseled him to lie. If he had any discussions with him, they'd be about the version of the events that Michael Cohen gave then, which they all believe was true. I believed it was true. I still believe it may be true because unlike these people who want to just believe him, I believe Michael Cohen is a serial liar.
TAPPER: You just acknowledged that it's possible that President Trump talked to Michael Cohen about his testimony.
GIULIANI: Which would be perfectly normal. Which the president believe was true.
TAPPER: So it's possible that that happened, that President Trump talked to Michael Cohen about his --
GIULIANI: I don't know if it happened or didn't happen. And it might attorney-client privilege if it happened, where I can't acknowledge it. But I have no knowledge that he spoke to him. But I'm telling you, I wasn't there then.
TAPPER: So --
GIULIANI: It's not significant because the version he gave to the --
TAPPER: Well, Michael Cohen -- but he's convicted of -- I mean, one of the things he pleaded guilty to, I believe, is lying to Congress about the Trump Tower deal.
GIULIANI: Which time? Which time, Jake?
TAPPER: Well, I'm --
GIULIANI: You can pick your time.
TAPPER: Right, but about the Trump Tower deal.
GIULIANI: Under oath --
TAPPER: About the Trump Tower deal.
GIULIANI: But he's pleading guilty to get a reduced sentence, which means he's saying what the prosecutor wants him to say.
TAPPER: But you just acknowledged that President Trump might have talked to him about his testimony.
GIULIANI: And so what if he talked to him about it?
TAPPER: Well, is it not possible that Michael Cohen had that conversation --
GIULIANI: If it's the truth.
TAPPER: And I'm just asking you for what happened or what didn't happen.
GIULIANI: It's not possible. Not possible.
TAPPER: That Michael Cohen left the conversation thinking, well, this is what the boss wants me to say. The boss wants me --
GIULIANI: Not possible.
TAPPER: It's not possible?
GIULIANI: The guy driving this testimony was Michael Cohen. In other words, you and I are in a deal together. You're the guy running it. I'm the guy that's sitting back there doing 50 over things. When it comes time to remember what happens, I go to you and you tell me what happened. I don't tell you what happened.
TAPPER: Let me ask you --
GIULIANI: So Michael Cohen was telling people what happened. I don't know if the president was briefed by him or wasn't. He certainly was briefed by his lawyers, all attorney-client privilege.
GIULIANI: But I can tell you this, Michael Cohen's lawyers believed him at the time.
GIULIANI: Why wouldn't the president believe him?
TAPPER: In his written answers --
GIULIANI: And he knew what happened. He, Michael Cohen, was the guy in charge of this. I emphasize that.
GIULIANI: President Trump was running for president. So when this comes down.
GIULIANI: And everybody's in a joint defense agreement, you go to Michael Cohen, you say, Michael, what happened?
GIULIANI: Michael is going to remember a lot better what happened than Donald Trump where this was like this big in his recollection and it's this big in Michael's.
TAPPER: So -- right. So -- but let me ask you a question about something that you were the lawyer --
GIULIANI: And what you're doing is so unfair.
TAPPER: This part you were the lawyer for. In his written -- lawyer for Trump for. In his written answers, President Trump's written answers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's questions, what did President Trump have to say about the Trump Moscow project? GIULIANI: He acknowledged that they had conversations about it
throughout 2015, 2016.
TAPPER: Through November 2016?
GIULIANI: And he answered --
TAPPER: Through -- right? That's what you said before.
GIULIANI: He answered those questions fully, and I think to the satisfaction of the special counsel. So I'm not at all concerned about that. He gave a full and complete answer to it. I can't share the whole thing with you, but I can share the conclusion, which is he had conversations with Michael Cohen, but it was Michael Cohen driving the project. As of course anybody who's being fair minded would understand. He was running, I emphasize, for president of the United States, tied up 18 hours a day with that.
GIULIANI: If he could devote a minute a day to this, it would be a lot. So it would be a minute here, a minute there, a minute here. Your recollection of that is not going to be that strong.
TAPPER: So let me ask you --
GIULIANI: The guy running the deal is going to remember it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right. Joining me right now from Washington is "Washington Post" columnist Josh Rogin and Michael Zeldin, CNN legal analyst and former special assistant to Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice.
Good to see you both. All right, so, Michael, you first. You know, so what do you make of Rudy Giuliani's argument and admission that the president may have spoken with Michael Cohen about his testimony and that would be normal?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first, Rudy Giuliani should not be on television. This story would not be something we'd be talking about today had he not showed up with Jake Tapper this morning. So what he's doing strategically is a mystery to me. Secondly, with respect to the substance of it is he is saying that the conversations between the president and Cohen extended beyond January possibly. The president doesn't remember it, he says, but possibly it did. But if it did, it doesn't make a difference.
WHITFIELD: In 2015 and 2016.
ZELDIN: And he also says that the president may have talked to him about the testimony that he gave, which also he says is no big deal. So if it's completely benign, it's no big deal. If you believe that there was some influence that was brought to bear on Michael Cohen's testimony or there was a wink and a nod agreement between the president and Michael Cohen about what the nature of that testimony is, then it's problematic legally, yes.
[16:25:09] WHITFIELD: So, Josh, you know, this pattern is rather familiar, is it not? You know, whether it be from the president or his attorney, first a denial, it never happened, then so what if it did? And then there's the hypothetical of if it did, it wouldn't be a big problem. Giuliani said that, you know, this discussion or the Trump Tower Moscow deal, it wasn't really a deal if it was just a plan. I mean, what do you make of all of this, I guess, confusion or the changing of the stories? It seems to make matters worse.
JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. I mean, it --
WHITFIELD: Or more complicated.
ROGIN: It's bizarre to try to pick through the rantings of Rudy Giuliani to try to figure out exactly what he's trying to say and then what he actually knows and then what he's actually saying that the president is trying to say and what he knows.
So first we had Jake's interview. Then we had an interview on another network. And then just a couple hours ago, "The New York Times'" Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt put up another interview with Giuliani where he further clarifies that the president acknowledges that his discussions with Michael Cohen lasted until Election Day. The quote, according to Rudy Giuliani, from the president is, "It was all going from the day I announced to the day I won." OK. And that's another clarification of the clarification of the clarification.
So just put aside the testimony for a second. Here's the president and his lawyer acknowledging that they were working with Michael Cohen. He knew about the Trump Tower negotiations until Election Day. That means he knew about it not only after January, but through the convention, through the debates, through the no puppet, no puppet, remember all that stuff? OK. All through that time. And while he was telling the American people he had nothing to do with Russia, no dealings in Russia.
I urge everyone to go online real quick and take a look at that 17- page letter of intent that President Trump signed in October 2015 that started all of this. That apparently, according to Trump, went through Election Day. Are they really going to claim that this is no business dealings with Russia? It was very, very specific, very detailed work. It didn't work out, so if you're saying, oh, well, the conflict of interest didn't succeed, I guess they can retreat to that position, but there's a basic issue here.
Conflict of interest while he's running for the job to represent American interests and secretly, and covertly he's working to advance his own financial interests and that of the Trump Organization, that's the essence of the corruption. And then after the election, we can talk about the cover-up and what did he know about the cover-up. On that, Rudy Giuliani really doesn't seem to know much at all, or at least he said.
WHITFIELD: And so, Michael, I mean, Giuliani is a former prosecutor. And he knows that, you know, the Mueller probe is ongoing and all of these versions of events, the changing of the story, why wouldn't he think this only gives more ammunition, you know, more material in which to broaden the scope of the investigation or perhaps narrow scopes of investigation?
ZELDIN: Well, that's the great question. I don't understand what Giuliani is doing from a public relations or a legal representation standpoint, going on television and making all of these mistakes. If I were Giuliani, what I would be wondering is why was it that Mueller chose to indict Michael Cohen for lying to Congress?
He could have indicted Michael Cohen for lying to him because he repeated the same lies to Mueller when he first came in for the interview. Why did he choose to charge Cohen with lying to Congress? Was it because he wanted to have a predicate for other people having coordinated with him with those lies? If you remember in the statement that Mueller issued to the judge in support of the sentencing of Michael Cohen, he says, and I'll read it to you, he says, "The information provided by Cohen about the Moscow project in these sessions," in meetings with him, "is consistent with and corroborated by other information obtained in the course of the special counsel office investigation."
So it would seem possibly that if I were Giuliani, what I'd be much more worried about is again why did they charge him with lying to Congress? And is there truth to the proposition that Cohen may have, if you will, rigged his false testimony in coordination with others, either the president or President Trump Organization people?
WHITFIELD: Josh --
ZELDIN: That's what I would worry about.
ROGIN: Yes -- no, I mean, I think the most plausible theory about why Rudy is doing all this is because he's trying to muddy the waters. Right?
WHITFIELD: It's a distraction.
ROGIN: He's drawing us all into what we call the liar's paradox. Right? Michael Cohen's a liar. President Trump is a lawyer. Rudy Giuliani is a liar. So who are you going to believe and how are you going to impeach the president when everybody knows all three of these guys are lying? So who can figure it out? And that's why I think Michael's very correctly focusing on what is the corroborating evidence. OK? And that's the essence of why we're talking about this, it's not because Rudy went on TV.
It's because BuzzFeed published that huge story that's in so much discussion about alleging there's actually corroborated evidence that the President specifically directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, which would be if proven, an impeachable offense, OK?
[16:30:01] And eventually we're going to find out if that's true, and that's the essence of it. And even if we never get that far, the fact that in order to muddy the waters about that, he had to admit to the basic corruption is stunning. FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, NEWSROOM ANCHOR: Muddies the waters or adds fuel
to the fire. Pick your poison here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Either.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Josh Rogan, Michael Zeldin, thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: Still ahead, a disturbing viral video of an encounter between a group of teenagers and a Native American elder, the story and fallout behind the video that has everyone talking and outraged, next.
[16:35:00] WHITFIELD: A viral video of a standoff between a Native American elder and Catholic school teens at the Lincoln Memorial is sparking 24 hours of outrage online. But as with any viral video, there is more truth than what you see in a clip on Twitter. CNN's Sara Sidner is digging deeper, Sara.
SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Fred. You know when a video from a moment in time goes viral, there is often more to tell. And as we reported this story out, we found video that started a full hour before the Native American elder and a Catholic school student came face to face. We will show you why and how they came together, and why some aren't only condemning the students' behavior but the adults around them.
New video emerges in a story that has gone viral between Catholic school students and a Native American elder named Nathaniel Phillips. Phillips found himself surrounded by students, one staring him down, the others chanting around him as Phillips says he was trying to create calm between two groups at odds.
NATHAN PHILLIPS, NATIVE AMERICAN ELDER AND VIETNAM WAR VETERAN: I realized I had put myself in a really dangerous situation, you know? It was like here's a group of people who were angry at somebody else. And I put myself in front of that, and all of a sudden I am the one who's all that anger and all that wanting to have the freedom to just rip me apart.
SIDNER: This video shows what happened long before Phillips shows up. You can see a group of about five black men who identify as Hebrew Israelites preaching. They start taunting people of all colors, other black visitors, natives, and a Catholic priest.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's make America great again. A bunch of child molesters.
SIDNER: This is the moment that group becomes aware of the students, some wearing make America Great Again hats. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got these pompous bastards come down here in
the middle of a Native rally with their dirty ass hat on.
SIDNER: At first, the Catholic school students are there in small numbers. But more and more students begin to gather, watching with few weighing in. The small group of men continues taunting them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A bunch of incest babies. This is what America -- make America great looks like.
SIDNER: The students begin to react but do not approach the men. The black Israelites continue to condemn the kids.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You worship blasphemy. We got angels for us.
SIDNER: Then, one of the students takes off his shirt and the group begins chanting. Two minutes later, you hear a drum beat. That is Phillips and another Native American drummer. He says it was an attempt to thwart potential violence. The kids danced to it, and some begin chanting along with the Native song. But for those who think they were enjoying each other's company, Phillips says that is not at all how it felt, especially because of the student standing before him.
PHILLIPS: Fear, not for myself, but fear for the next generations, fear where this country's going, fear for those youth, fear for their future, fear for their souls, their spirit, what they're going to do to this country.
SIDNER: The Covington Catholic School students were in Washington from Kentucky, taking part in the right to life march. And the Catholic diocese that oversees the school has condemned the students' behavior towards Nathaniel Phillips and Native Americans in general. And they say they're investigating. But there is something very clear that was happening in this video.
And basically, that hour and a half video that went out that we were able to view kind of all things that happened before all this and some of what happened afterwards, the black men who call themselves the Hebrew Israelites were really the ones who were spewing hate initially and causing all this tension, Fred.
WHITFIELD: Sara Sidner, very complicated. Thank you for bringing it to us. Appreciate it. All right, the stage is set for another high- stakes meeting between President Trump and North Korean Leader, Kim Jong-Un. Next, what we're learning about the plans for a second summit and what it could mean for tensions between the two countries.
[16:40:00] WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. President Trump is expected to reveal the location of his second summit with North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un soon. The White House announced plans for the second round of talks after the president met with North Korea's lead negotiator on nuclear talks at the White House on Friday. The summit will take place near the end of February, and the president says a location has been selected.
Today, Vice President Mike Pence says the president will announce the location for the high-stakes meeting soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The president will be announcing details in the days ahead. The meeting that took place this week confirmed there will be a second summit. And at that summit, we'll be laying out our expectation for North Korea to take concrete steps to begin to make real the denuclearization that Kim Jong-Un committed to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: CNN's National Security Reporter Kylie Atwood joins us now with more on this. So Kylie, any indication where this summit would take place?
[16:44:53] KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Well, we know that Vietnam is a leading contender. It's the closest to North Korea of the three locations that the White House sent location -- sent scouting teams to, to check out. We know that it was Hanoi. It was Hawaii. And it was Bangkok that White House officials scoured and tried to see which one they would like.
But the president has not made official the exact location. What he did say after his meetings on Friday with these North Korean diplomats who were in town was at the end of February, as you noted earlier, is going to be when this second summit will take place. And he met with the North Korean diplomats for an hour and a half in the Oval Office on Friday.
That's a long amount of time. It's also important to note that it was the first time in 18 years that North Korean officials spent the night here in Washington. They spent two nights here. And it's clear that the U.S. is trying to grease the wheel for positive engagement with the North Koreans as both sides are very hopeful for the second summit.
WHITFIELD: And Kylie, the president sent out a tweet saying the media is not giving us credit for the tremendous progress we have made in North Korea. Think of where we are at the end of the Obama administration compared to now, great meeting this week with top reps, looking forward to meeting with Chairman Kim at the end of February. So what are the accomplishments that the White House wants to underscore?
ATWOOD: Well, the accomplishments that Vice President Pence noted in an interview earlier today was that North Korea is no longer testing its nuclear weapons or launching missiles. And they haven't done so as they've been interacting with the U.S. officials on diplomacy that would lead, hopefully, the U.S. hopes, toward complete, irreversible denuclearization of North Korea.
But of course, just because they're not testing them doesn't mean they're not working on them. And U.S. intelligence reports say that they are indeed still working on their nuclear program, which should be preventative, some say, from continuing to have these talks. Just last week, the Pentagon's defense missile strategy demonstrated -- came out and said that North Korea is still an extraordinary threat to the U.S.
So as they go into these meetings, Pence said that they are going to be, indeed, requesting from them concrete steps that they have to take towards denuclearization to make everyone feel like there is some progress. It's not just talks.
WHITFIELD: All right. Kylie Atwood, thank you so much. And we'll be right back.
[16:50:00] WHITFIELD: A newly released draft memo shows that as early as 2017, the Trump administration had a plan to separate migrant children from their families at the U.S./Mexico border. Meantime, a separate watchdog reports shows the Trump administration has no idea how many kids were separated. But its thousands more than previously admitted. Here's CNN's Nick Valencia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The report is stunning. The HHS office of the inspector general found that the Trump administration has no idea how many children were separated from their parents or guardians. But what is clear is that it's potentially thousands more than the number that was previously reported of 2,737. Part of this report indicates that the reason they don't know how many children were separated was that there wasn't a proper data collection system in place.
Not only did we learn that headline, but also that more children are being held for a longer period of time in U.S. custody than the public is aware. And if you remember, it was last summer that a federal judge ruled that there must be a unification, reunification deadline. CNN previously reported that children were still being separated after that deadline passed. But what we learned on Thursday from this OIG report is that there was a total of at least 118 children that were separated.
They say mostly because of a criminal history with a parent or guardian. Now, this report was part of a two-week fact-finding mission, a collection of data where these inspectors visited a total of 45 sites. And here's what HHS is saying in response to the OIG report. The effort undertaken by HHS was complex, fast moving, and resource sensitive.
OIG's report provides a window into the herculean work of the HHS career staff to rapidly identify children in ORR care who had been separated from their parents and reunify them. Right now we don't know, as I mentioned, how many children were separated. OIG says they're working on another report and we will potentially learn more at a later date, Nick Valencia, CNN, Atlanta, Georgia. WHITFIELD: And the death toll is climbing following a deadly pipeline
explosion in central Mexico. Officials say at least 79 people are now dead, and dozens more hurt after Friday night's explosion. It happened about 65 miles north of Mexico City. Mexico authorities say the preliminary belief is the explosion was caused by static electricity from the clothing of people around the pipeline.
And Prince Philip has been caught on camera breaking the law. These pictures show the Duke of Edinburgh driving without a seat belt. The photos were taken just 48 hours after the 97-year-old royal crashed into a car with two women and a baby inside. The prince's vehicle flipped on its side as you see right there. He was not hurt. But the two women suffered minor injuries. A Buckingham Palace source tells CNN Prince Philip passed a police eyesight test.
As for the photographs showing the prince behind the wheel without a belt, well, police say they have given him, "suitable words of advice". Buckingham Palace has not yet responded. And be sure to catch an all new episode of American Style tonight on CNN. Here's a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Grunge is an extension of the hippie movement. It was the anti-conformist fashion niche, but it was also about fairly minimal clothes. I mean we have a t-shirt. We have a pair of jeans. We have a ratty old holy sweater.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People wore something they didn't even have to think about. It looked as though, in the case of Kurt Cobain, he did his shopping at second-hand stores.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was the beginning of vintage becoming popular, and then in today's world, vintage becoming expensive.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's about coming into stores like this and finding your favorite thing and just putting it all together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These guys weren't trying to create a fashion trend. They had poured all their heart and soul into their music. They didn't have money to go buy stuff. They were thrifting. And eventually, because of the power of their music, it transformed from what was not intended to be a fashion movement to truly a worldwide sensation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: American Style airs tonight, 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on CNN. Thanks so much for joining me this Sunday. I am Fredricka Whitfield. The news continues with Ana Cabrera right after this.