Return to Transcripts main page


Teen Responds To Social Media Outrage Over Viral Video; Sources: Ex-Starbucks CEO Weighs Possible 2020 Independent Bid; Wash State Dem Party Chair Invites Howard Schultz To Meet; Govt. Report: Trump Admin Separated Many More Children From Parents Than Previously Thought; Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump and Cohen May Have Discussed Testimony; Interview with Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Teen Responds to Social Media Outrage Over Viral Video; Aired 8-9p ET

Aired January 20, 2019 - 20:00   ET


[20:00:00] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: They didn't. But if they did, so what? That was the take from the president's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, today when asked whether President Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen ever discussed Cohen's testimony to Congress. Some of that testimony turned out to be a lie, and is part of the reason Cohen is going to prison for three years.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "STATE OF THE UNION": But you just acknowledged that it's possible that President Trump talked to Michael Cohen about his testimony.

RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: 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 be 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.


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 -- 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.


CABRERA: CNN's Sarah Westwood is at the White House for us.

Sarah, during that interview, Giuliani also offered a very colorful idea of what he thinks qualifies as obstruction of justice.

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Ana. The president's personal attorney making the argument that simply removing a cabinet official, even one who might be involved in an investigation is not itself obstruction of justice. Rudy Giuliani arguing that that would require an additional act of wrongdoing in order to become obstruction in what would otherwise be a lawful exercise of the president's constitutional authority to fire someone in his cabinet.

Now this, of course, comes as the president is under renewed scrutiny of whether or not he may have committed obstruction during the course of the Russia investigation. Giuliani, as you just heard, has been denying that President Trump instructed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress. But he did leave open the possibility that Trump and Cohen may have talked about that testimony before Cohen delivered it.

Now Giuliani is also making the arguments, though, that the president's repeated threats against Cohen's father-in-law is not obstruction. Seemingly contradicting his own logic there. Trump has repeatedly called for an investigation into Cohen's father-in-law as there has been scrutiny on Cohen. Take a listen to Giuliani's argument.


GIULIANI: The president of the United States today fires one of his cabinet members. He cannot be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. He would have to -- he would have to do a corrupt act in addition to that. He goes up to his cabinet member and says, if you don't do this, I'm going to break your legs.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: Or I'm going to take money away from you, or I'm going to have your wife put under investigation.

TAPPER: Well --

GIULIANI: Now we have obstruction of justice.

TAPPER: But let me ask, the president is repeatedly calling, publicly, on Judge Janine's show, on Twitter, he's repeatedly calling for an investigation into Michael Cohen's father-in-law ahead of Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress. By your own definition, isn't that obstruction?

GIULIANI: No. He's defending himself.

TAPPER: Or attempting to intimidate a witness?

GIULIANI: No. No. Now if you made that obstruction, I can't defend anybody.


WESTWOOD: Now rewind a year and a half, the FBI did open an obstruction of justice inquiry into President Trump after he fired his former FBI director James Comey. That was folded into Mueller's investigation so we don't know the status of it and we don't know, Ana, what Mueller knows about the discussions Trump may have had with his former lawyer, Cohen, about that testimony to Congress.

CABRERA: That's right. We have a lot of questions still need to be answered.

Sarah Westwood, thank you.

This does move the ball forward. So let's talk about it with our CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and White House reporter for Bloomberg News, Toluse Olorunnipa.

Paul, you heard Giuliani there making clear he's certain Trump didn't tell Cohen to lie but he leaves open the possibility that Trump and Cohen may have discussed something about his testimony in Congress. If he knew Cohen lied to Congress, is that a problem?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it is a problem because he would have an obligation, you would think, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, which the president is, by the way, if he knew that his own personal lawyer had lied to Congress, to do something to straighten things out. You would expect an honorable or an ethical person to do that.

Now the law doesn't require him to do that. So I suppose Giuliani may be technically correct that that's not a crime. However, when impeachment charges were lodged against Richard Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee, one of the things that was listed was a failure to correct testimony, incorrect testimony that had been given in connection with the Watergate investigation.

[20:05:12] So there is some precedent for proceeding in an impeachment proceeding on this.

CABRERA: Now Giuliani also says it's perfectly normal if the two had talked about Cohen's testimony. Is that normal?

CALLAN: Well, he has a point in the sense that if you have -- let's say it was just a regular corporate situation and a lawyer for the corporation was being called to testify in a proceeding. Yes, you could discuss with him the testimony. As a matter of fact, he might want to discuss it with you to refresh his recollection.

What's illegal is steering his testimony, is saying to him, you know, it's really going to hurt me if you say that you were negotiating Trump Tower Moscow during the campaign. Now that would be an attempt to influence the testimony and could be criminal.

CABRERA: All right. So, Toluse, here's the other thing. Giuliani also talked about that Trump Tower Moscow deal. And apparently, according to Giuliani today, could have lasted until November 2016. Listen.


GIULIANI: It's our understanding that they went on throughout 2016. There weren't a lot of them, but there were conversations. Can't be sure of the exact dates but the president can remember having conversations with him about it.

TAPPER: Throughout 2016?

GIULIANI: The president also remembers -- yes, probably up to -- could be up to as far as October, November. Our answers cover until the election. So any time during that period, they could have talked about it.


CABRERA: If these talks lasted into November, that means they were happening the entire time the president was running for president. They were happening in July when he said his businesses weren't involved with Russia. They were happening in August when National Security officials actually warned Trump that Russia could try to infiltrate his campaign. Toluse, when you look at this timeline, you can see why it would

benefit Trump for the talks to end in January like Cohen originally told Congress.

TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Yes, that's exactly right. And it would also include the time when Russia was interfering in the presidential election on Trump's behalf and to Trump's benefit if he was in cahoots, in a business deal at the same time that the Russians were hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mails and releasing them to the public. It would not be good to know that President Trump was having this secret, undiscovered and unrevealed talks with Russia about building the Trump Tower Moscow.

So it does give us a sense of why and what the incentive might have been for Michael Cohen to decide to mislead Congress about the timeline. That definitely benefited President Trump at the time that he was still trying to say, you know, I have no dealings with Russia, I have not had any deals with Russia, I have not been involved in any business interest with Russia. So it does make sense that Michael Cohen was making a statement that was misleading to Congress in a way that benefited President Trump and that now we hear from Giuliani that President Trump and Michael Cohen may have talked before Michael Cohen made these misleading statements.

The pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together and the last piece would be whether or not President Trump was aware or whether or not he directed Michael Cohen to steer Congress away from knowing that President Trump was having these talks about Russia and the Trump Tower Moscow before the election, even up until the election actually happened.


OLORUNNIPA: So the timeline that Michael Cohen put forward in misleading Congress was to Trump's benefit and whether or not the president knew about that in advance or whether or not he directed that is the big question that we might have to wait until Mueller wraps up his investigation before we all know that.

CABRERA: I wonder if this is a question now Cohen will face in that public testimony just next month.

Giuliani also made some headlines this week for saying he never claimed there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And that's significant because here he is moving the goal post again on this issue. Listen.


GIULIANI: The collusion part, we're pretty comfortable with because there has been none. No evidence of collusion. I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians. If the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago. I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign. I said the president of the United States.


CABRERA: Paul, what do you make of just how much the goal posts have moved?

CALLAN: Well, you know, it's bizarre with Giuliani, because it's almost like he's put on the air by the Trump people to prove that nothing is illegal. I mean, it -- when he starts out, he starts saying well, collusion with the Russians would be a problem but, of course, the president and the campaign never did that. And now at the end of this road he's saying, well, maybe collusion took place, but the president didn't know anything about it.

I find that hard to believe. If that's your defense and if Mueller has something on collusion, the president is in big trouble. Because when you sit back and think about it, is it possible that the amateur operation, which was the president's campaign, that a few guys sat down together, and women, and said you know, why don't we get together with the Russians? They might have a way to elect Trump president?

[20:10:03] Would they do that on their own, to do such a bizarre thing, to meet with an enemy of the United States to get their boss elected, without telling the boss about it? Believe me, if serious people, high-ranking people in the campaign colluded with the Russians there will be a trail back to the president.

CABRERA: Toluse, a lot of times we hear these comments from Giuliani and think of them as gaffes, but sometimes they end up being purposeful like he's trying to get ahead of some major story that's about to drop. Do you think that's the case here?

OLORUNNIPA: It's difficult to know the strategy that Rudy Giuliani is implementing here. He has been sort of all over the place, he has sort of put things out that have been smoke screens and have caused the public to sort of scratch their heads about where things are going next, and I think he's served as sort of a distraction role in making people leave the trail from the president and focus on the bizarre things that his lawyer is saying.

So it's not clear whether or not Mr. Giuliani is trying to get ahead of something, his moving up the goal posts and talking about, you know, collusion may have happened but it didn't happen with the president is maybe a sign that he knows something that the rest of us don't about what Mueller knows. We do know that Giuliani and the president's other lawyers have been in constant contact with the Mueller team. So maybe that's a sign that -- of where things are going and where the public may soon know about the collusion question and whether or not people around the president and his inner circle were involved in discussions with the Russians and trading of information with the Russians.

We already do know that President Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort was sharing polling data with Russian operatives. So maybe that is a sign that we're getting closer to collusion but Giuliani is trying to draw a bright red line between people on the campaign and the president himself, to protect the president from Mueller's probe into collusion and maybe throw under the bus some of the president's close advisers and close confidants.

CABRERA: Toluse Olorunnipa, Paul Callan, good to have both of you with us. Thank you.

CALLAN: Thank you.

CABRERA: Coming up, one month of no pay. The government shutdown inflicting financial pain on the very people who defend this nation. Keep us safe. So what are the potential security risks?

I'll ask former secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, what keeps him up at night.


[20:16:21] CABRERA: I want to show you this. TSA workers at the busiest airport on the planet, Atlanta, getting donated food from a group that typically serves homeless people. These are the people we depend on to find explosives in luggage, having to fall back on handouts just to feed their families.

This shutdown is inflicting financial pain on TSA employees, on Border Patrol agents, Coast Guard personnel, Secret Service agents, the very people we rely on to keep our nation safe.

And joining me now, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who served during President Obama's second term.

And, Secretary Johnson, you're the perfect person to have with us today as we now are entering the 30th day of this government shutdown. You obviously have had a unique position in the government and have access to information and understanding of some of the things that we don't know about when it comes to national security. What keeps you up at night?

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Right now what keeps me up at night is the emerging security crisis we're having because really a self-inflicted wound, which is the very people we depend on to keep us safe, separate and apart from any discussion about a border wall, about border security, the very people we depend on, and we depend on the people most more than anything else. To keep us safe, land, sea, air, TSA, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, cyber security personnel, the Secret Service, are people, because of the failure of our political leadership, are the people that we are inflicting all sorts of stress, anxiety and anger in their personal lives and in the lives of their family.

And having led this very large workforce for three years during some periods of near shutdowns, I know what that's like. So for example, 2015 when we came close to a shutdown at DHS, there was a woman who worked for TSA, I'll never forget her. She had stage four cancer. And she was dependent upon her salary, her paychecks for her co-pays, for her cancer treatment. And we were going to have to furlough her if we went into shutdown and I took on personally counseling her through the stress of this. Most of our security personnel live paycheck to paycheck, and we're

inflicting all this anxiety on them. And as you pointed out in your lead-in, these are the very people we depend on to look for explosives, look for weapons in luggage, for aviation security, for counter drug on the high seas.

CABRERA: And if their minds are somewhere else --

JOHNSON: And if their mind is someplace else, if they're distracted, if they're upset, we are compromising our own security. And this is something as a result of our leaders' failure to come to an agreement.

CABRERA: Is there a breaking point?

JOHNSON: I worry that there will be a breaking point if they miss their next paycheck frankly. To miss two consecutive paychecks is a big, big deal to ask someone who makes $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year. And even if this were resolved tomorrow the damage we have done to our security and our law enforcement, I think, will last months if not years in terms of retention, recruitment.

People in the Coast Guard, for example, may think twice about re- enlisting. People in the Secret Service will have their families tell them, why do you need to work these long hours and you're not getting paid? And so when I was in office we were fighting high levels of attrition just in the Secret Service. And we're able to turn that around but I fear that this will be a major step backwards in so many respects.

CABRERA: Just yesterday the president made a new pitch to the American people and really to lawmakers, Democrats, offering them some concessions, some would say, in exchange for his money for border security, his wall, that he's touted.

[20:20:12] But here's some of his proposals. $800 million for drug detention and -- detection, I should say, technology at ports of entry, thousands more border agents, dozens more immigration agents, and $5.7 billion for a new border barrier. He says he's talking about roughly 200 miles. Not a wall from sea to shining sea, doesn't have to be built of concrete, could be steel slats, among other things.

I want you to read on this. Are these effective measures for security?

JOHNSON: I thought that there was a lot to work with, in that proposal. We need more immigration judges. We need more technology at ports of entry where you find the most dangerous things trying to cross our southern border. And I noted the use of the word barrier as opposed to a wall, signaling perhaps some flexibility there. But what strikes me most, if you could remove the emotion and the politics from this dispute, two creative lawyers who know how to wordsmith could probably resolve it in 45 minutes.

What constitutes a wall versus a fence, for example? What's the difference between a wall and a vehicle fence or a pedestrian fence? CABRERA: Do you believe that a wall or some kind of barrier is

necessary in certain portions of the southern border where maybe dozen exist already?

JOHNSON: We have a wall now. And I suspect -- I haven't looked at this in a couple of years, obviously. There may be places where we could fortify existing structures, where we could strengthen places where there's just a pedestrian fence or a vehicle fence and perhaps raise it a few feet. There may be ways to fortify what we have without wasting taxpayer money and work through and get this whole thing resolved, but I fear that what's happening right now is each side is digging in so much that it's going to be difficult to resolve.

And, you know, in addition to being the former secretary, I'm a lawyer and I have resolved lots of disputes. One thing you don't do is negotiate in public, which makes it harder to come to an inevitable compromise.

CABRERA: Our thanks to you, Jeh Johnson.

Coming up, a teen involved in an encounter with a Native American elder responds to the social media outrage over this viral video. Why he says it doesn't tell the whole story.


[20:26:55] CABRERA: New tonight, we are now hearing from the teenager at the center of this viral video featuring a standoff with a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial. The teenager says there's a lot more to this story than what we're seeing in the initial clips.

CNN's Sara Sidner has been digging on it for us -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. We did receive three pages of comments from this young man. His family sent it out. And here's part of what he says. And obviously with these viral videos, there's a lot more to them. There's always a story that goes along with them that happened before and after something like this happens, and we have viewed video that gives a better, bigger picture of what happened leading up to that face-off between the student and the Native American elder.

Here's what -- was one part of the statement from the student who was standing there face to face. He said, "Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group. Our chaperone gave us permission to use our school chants."

Now he is referring to the nasty things they were hearing not from the Native American group but from a group of black men who call themselves the Hebrew Israelites. And we are now going to show you some video of exactly some of the things that they were saying to the students and others.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SIDNER (voice-over): 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 Philips 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. Here is a group of people who were angry at somebody else and I put myself in front of that and all of a sudden I'm the one whose all that anger and all that wanting to have their 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 preach.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's make America great again. A bunch of child molesters (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

SIDNER: This is the moment that group becomes aware of the students, some wearing "Make America Great Again" hats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you got these pompous bastards come down here in a 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. Donald Trump babies. This is what America makes you. 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've got angels that (INAUDIBLE) for us.


SIDNER: Then one of the students takes off his shirt and the group begins chanting. Two minutes later, you hear a drumbeat. 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 began 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 students standing before him.

NATHAN PHILLIPS, NATIVE AMERICAN ELDER & VIETNAM WAR VETERAN: Fear not for myself but fear for the next generations, fear where this country is going, fear for your -- those youths, fear for their future, fear for their souls, their spirit, their -- what they're going to do to this country. SIDNER: Now, in the student's statement, he says that he is now

facing fear that he is receiving death threats, as is his family, and he talks a little bit more about what happened during that interaction, saying that he never interacted with the protester, that he did not speak to him. He says, "I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. I believed that remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation." and he goes on to say, "I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person's right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe, though, he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make."

So, you are now hearing the other side of this story. You're hearing from the student who has been at the center of all of this, saying that from his perspective, he was the one being calm and he was the one that was getting the aggressive threats. Of course, you also heard from the Native American elder who said he was actually trying to calm the situation down, too. The people who seemed to have started all of this are the ones making all of those racist threats and screaming at these kids and those were the Hebrew Israelites. Ana?

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: All right. Sara Sidner, thanks for digging deep. We appreciate you staying on top of this. He has been a rumored Presidential candidate for years, but is the billionaire former head of Starbucks finally getting close to making it official? We have new reporting on Howard Schultz, next.


CABRERA: Stop me if this sounds familiar; billionaire businessman thinking about a Presidential bid, has identified as a Democrat but may not run as one. Sources tell CNN former Starbucks CEO and vocal Trump critic, Howard Schultz is exploring a possible independent bid for the presidency in 2020. Now, over the years, CNN's Poppy Harlow has asked Schultz many, many times if he was interested in running. Here's what he has said in the past.


POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Will you rule out a run for political office?

HOWARD SCHULTZ, FORMER CEO, STARBUCKS: Yes, I will rule out. I have no interest in a political office. I'm here at Starbucks.

HARLOW: Do you think you'll run for office, any sort of office in 2016?

SCHULTZ: You know, I'm just thinking, has there been an interview that you and I have done where you've not asked me that question?


SCHULTZ: No, I have no plans to run for office. HARLOW: Are you considering at all a run for the White House?

SCHULTZ: I have no plans whatsoever to run for political office.

HARLOW: Are you considering at all throwing your hat in the ring for 2020?

SCHULTZ: You know, you've -- I don't know how many times you've asked me this question. And each time, I've had a pretty consistent answer, and certainly, I am deeply committed to all things Starbucks at this time.

HARLOW: It's not a never.


CABRERA: And he's not at Starbucks anymore. Joining us now, CNN Politics and Business Correspondent Cristina Alesci. So, Cristina, interesting to take that walk down memory lane because more recently, there have been some signs that Schultz was at least softening his position on whether to run. What more can you tell us?

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN POLITICS AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's definitely been coy about the question in recent interviews. And we have to remember that, look, Schultz has been more willing than most CEOs I've interviewed to weigh in on politics. For years now he's been doing this. Now, in recent years, he seems to be taking an even harder stance in politics. In 2017, when the Trump administration announced an executive order, for example, that was considered a Muslim ban, banning refugees from majority Muslim countries, Starbucks announced that it would hire 10,000 refugees over five years. That was two days after the Trump administration made that announcement. He's also said that Trump has caused chaos that could hurt the economy and he's criticized the President's tax policy. All this has culminated right now into his book tour next week, he's kicking it off.

[20:40:01] And what I'm hearing from sources is that he's going to make statements at these individual stops that will continue to stoke speculation about his Presidential run. But, boy, was Poppy persistent in all those interviews.

CABRERA: Yes. She's a dogged reporter. Why an independent, though, if he does make this run? Does that set off any potential alarm bells for Democrats who would be looking to defeat Trump?

ALESCI: It's a good question. It's a big issue for him. You know, independent is an interesting choice for Howard. He definitely has a progressive streak if you look at the way he's run his company. But he also said things -- has said things in the past that more align with Republicans. He has talked about runaway government spending, he's talked about changes to entitlements. The reason that independent might be appealing to him is because his strategists are probably suggesting that that's a path to victory, that both sides have been so polarized and that there's a swath of people in the middle of America that doesn't want to vote Republican or Democrat because they're just sick of partisan politics.

The problem is, no one knows how big that pool of people is right now. And the Democrats rightly fear that an independent candidate can drain votes from them and hand the election victory to Trump and the Washington -- the chair of Washington's Democratic Party, Washington State, has been fiercely opposed to Howard Schultz running as an independent. And in fact, just tonight, she's issuing an invitation to Howard to meet with her, saying, you know, I haven't heard from you about your possible independent Presidential bid, but I want to meet and talk about this.

CABRERA: So put, you know, all the party side of this discussion aside for a moment because when you just look at Howard Schultz, the person and his portfolio, his resume, what advantages or disadvantages might he have in a general election?

ALESCI: Well, he has a very compelling story, you know, when any reporter sits down and kind of learns about his story, it's remarkable. He grew up in the projects in Canarsie Brooklyn. He talks about how his father was injured on the job, and how he had to witness his father not being able to provide for the family because he didn't have workers comp or insurance or any safety net. And he wanted to build a company that his father would be proud to work for. And that's what inspired a lot of the policies at Starbucks. He's a successful businessman.

I think the difficulty that he has is that his name is not well known outside of New York and California, and he's going to have to spend a lot of money, which is another issue for him. He is a billionaire at a time when Democrats are taking shots at billionaires. They don't want them to self-fund. Howard has -- is worth about $3.3 billion, according to Forbes. That is about $43 billion less than another Democrat who wants to -- than another billionaire who wants to run as a democrat, Michael Bloomberg, who has, you know, run a huge city and definitely has -- is making -- you know, stoking speculation about a potential bid there.

CABRERA: I know you are following his potential candidacy as well. Cristina Alesci, good to have you with us. Thank you.

ALESCI: Thank you.

CABRERA: We'll be right back.


CABRERA: The Trump administration's zero-tolerance immigration policy outraged people all around the world who saw children separated from their families at the southern border. But a new report from the federal government says those separations may have happened much more often than previously thought. CNN's Nick Valencia has the stunning figures.


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. A 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.

And 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 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 is 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."

And right now, we don't know, as I mentioned, how many children were separated. OIG says they are working on another report, and we will potentially learn more at a later date. Nick Valencia, CNN, Atlanta, Georgia.


CABRERA: Thanks, Nick. If you ever needed a reason to look before you jump in the water, here it is. What may be the largest Great White Shark on the planet spotted swimming with divers off the coast of Hawaii.


CABRERA: I want you to take a look now at some remarkable images out of Hawaii. Call this a close encounter of the ocean kind. A 20-foot long Great White Shark, believed to be one of the largest in the world swimming right up to a boat. This shark named "deep blue" is legendary. Believe she is 50 years old. Was last caught on camera five years ago. But this time, you can see there, a marine biologist got so close she even touched it.

It was the decade of sequins, big hair, parachute pants. Well, tonight, the CNN Original Series "AMERICAN STYLE" continues its journey through the decades. First up, the 1980s.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 80s have this extravagance, this excessiveness. Everyone wanted to be shiny and wear sequins and have big hair and excessive makeup.

[20:55:01] CHRISTIE BRINKLEY, MODEL ACTRESS: Jewelry was big, earrings were big, bigger the hair, the smaller the hips look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Volume was in with the big puffy sleeves and the big poof skirts.

TOMMY HILFIGER, FASHION DESIGNER: The shoulder pads were bigger than the New York Giants' shoulder pads with nipped-in waist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was about things being over scale, and it was vulgar in a way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As someone who suffered through the 1980s, we really lost our way from a style perspective.


CABRERA: Recently, I spoke with celebrity stylish Joe Zee, and got his take on whether American style lost its way in the 1980s.


JOE ZEE, CELEBRITY STYLIST: You know, American style and fashion, really, there isn't something about good and bad. And I think we always classify everything as good style, bad style, but really, it's reflective style. It's all personal style. And I think what the 80s style was, was reflective of that time. It was an incredibly excess time. It was Reagan years, it was really about a huge economic place and what was happening in America. And it was the bigger the hair and the closer to god, and it was about big dramatic sequins and gowns and shoulders. It was the era of dynasty. But you know what, though, that really defined that time.