Return to Transcripts main page


White House: Senate on Track to Introduce Trump's Shutdown Proposal Tomorrow, Democrats Say It's a Non-Starter; Interview with Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi; NYT: Classified Document Shows Russian oligarch With Ties To Putin May Benefit From Trump Admin Plan To Lift Sanctions; After Quoting Trump That Moscow Project Was Discussed Until "The Day I Won," Giuliani Walks Back Remark, Calls It Hypothetical; Giuliani In Damage Control; Walks Back Moscow Tower Comments; Senator Kamala Harris Announces Run For President, Faces Questions Over Her Record As Prosecutor; Kamala Harris Faces Questions Over Record As Prosecutor; Kamala Harri: "I Feel A Responsibility To Stand Up And Fight". Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 21, 2019 - 19:00   ET


DREW GRIFFIN, SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: ... yet. It will release them sometime in 2019. Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, CNN: Excellent reporting, Drew. Thank you. Thank you so much. And to our viewers, thanks for watching. Erin Burnett OutFront starts

ERIN BURNETT, ANCHOR, CNN: OutFront next. The new classified document that reportedly shows a Russian oligarch benefiting from Trump's sanctions deal after the administration had promised the whole point was that he was being punished. Plus Trump trying to make a shutdown deal, does he have a plan, the former Trump hotel executive says what he cares about is not looking like a loser, that I guess is out front. And the viral moment between a high school student and the Native American elder, does a new video change the story let's go OutFront.

And good evening I'm Erin Burnett OutFront tonight lying about Russia, tonight the New York Times reporting that there is a confidential document, a document which shows that Trump administration claims about a Russian oligarch and Putin confidant at the center of the Russia investigation are not true. It's a confidential binding document that according to The Times lays out a deal between Oleg Deripaska and Trumps Treasury Department. A deal which relieves Deripaska from hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and allows Deripaska and his allies to keep majority ownership of his most important company.

Now, this is stunning and it's crucial. And it's not just stunning because Deripaska is central to the Russia investigation. It is stunning because when Trump's Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, announced the sanctions were being lifted on Deripaska to the shock of many, he put out a statement saying that Deripaska was losing control of his company. That was the whole justification. He said, "These entities are undergoing significant restructuring and governance changes that sever Deripaska's control."

And, again, according to the New York Times, confidential document would show that that is not true, begging the question why. And as we ask that question, it comes as President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani is again trying to change the timeline on how long President Trump was personally working on a major deal in Moscow during the campaign. A deal that involved Putin.

Giuliani quoting Trump himself to the New York Times saying the talks were "going on from the day I announced to the day I won." So Giuliani sharing that as a quote from the President to The Times. It's a point that Giuliani also emphasized in two interviews over this weekend.


JAKE TAPPER, ANCHOR, CNN: 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?

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: He acknowledged that they had conversations about it throughout 2015-2016. But the President can remember having conversations with him about it ...

TAPPER: Throughout 2016.

GIULIANI: President also remember - yes, probably up - it to could be up to as far as October, November.


BURNETT: Okay, look, this is really significant because dates matter a whole lot when it comes to relations with Russia during the campaign. What this means, what Rudy Giuliani just did there was admit that talks lasted much longer than previously believed. Now, according to court documents, Michael Cohen said they stopped on June 14th 2016 and that shocked everybody because that was after everybody had lied and said that they stopped before the primaries even began

All right, so first it was the beginning of the year with primaries and then it was June 14th. And now Giuliani is admitting that talks went through the entire election, which proves that all of this was false.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there. I have no businesses there.

I don't know Putin. I have no business whatsoever with Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia.

I have nothing to do with Russia about it. They said, "Maybe Donald Trump is involved in projects with the Russian." The answer is no.


BURNETT: Okay. So not only is all that not true but if Trump was continuing to push a major project in Moscow through the election, it puts a whole new light on these sorts of comments.


TRUMP: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

You know the people of Crimea from what I've heard would rather be with Russia than where they were.

I hope I like him. I hope he likes me, because I'd love to get along with Russia, okay?


BURNETT: Sure would, right? I mean there was a lot of money at stake especially if you didn't think you were going to win the White House, which he didn't. Giuliani tonight desperately trying to do cleanup, telling CNN that his statements that Trump and Michael Cohen were talking about Trump Tower Moscow up into the election were hypothetical and not actually based on real conversations with the President.

Okay, the problem is, let me remind you from what I just said a moment ago, is that it does not add up, because of a call Giuliani quoted Trump. He quoted Trump to the New York Times. He didn't hypothetically say maybe what Trump - but he quoted him saying that the President told him that talks were "going on from the day I announced to the day I won," a quote from the President.


Evan Perez is OutFront live in Washington. And Evan, how big of a problem could these comments from Rudy Giuliani be for Trump? By the way, it's clear, right? There's that quote he provided. There's multiple interviews. He very clearly move the timeline a whole lot.

EVAN PEREZ, SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: No. That's right and not only did he move the timeline. He filled in the timeline, Erin. And look, I think, we make a lot of fun about Rudy Giuliani, and we make fun of the fact that he's kind of all over the place with his comments. But this time, he may have created a real legal problem for his client and I'll tell you why.

The President's answer to Robert Mueller's written questions only says simply that the records that the President has, his organization, the organization, the Trump organization goes up until January of 2016. But Rudy Giuliani has now done is he has quoted his client, right? Talk about attorney client privilege. He says, "Until the day I won," that these conversations were still happening. He also said that they were fleeting conversations, he told The New York Times.

So the New York Times interview, in particular, I think was particularly damaging potentially for Rudy Giuliani's client. And then, secondly, in his cleanup attempt now he says that these conversations were simply hypothetical, and not based on actual conversations with the President. So now if you're a prosecutor sitting at Robert Mueller's office, you have every reason to come back to the President's team and say, "Look, you guys have to clear this up."

And the only way to clear this up is for the President to sit down for an interview with the prosecutors. And I got to tell you, the reason why this is a big deal is because here we are, all indications are we're close to the finish line, and the President's team has managed to stop any sit down interview between the President and Mueller's team. And here, Rudy Giuliani, has just created a new opportunity that they can come back and say, "We really need this."

BURNETT: All right. Evan, thank you very much. I mean, obviously, hugely significant and you got to wonder why Rudy Giuliani knew that the timeline was out there or something different, would he so repeatedly change it when it's going to cause a problem. I mean he may have been all over the map, but he's got a reputation of being a pretty smart attorney.

OutFront now, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Harry Sadek, former Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama, Juliette Kayyem, and New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Frank Bruni.

Harry, first to you, just on the base of it, right, the facts that Rudy Giuliani is now saying are different than what they have been supposedly up until Michael Cohen admitted he lied and moved it up a little bit but now all the way through the election.


BURNETT: How significant is it if these talks for Trump Tower Moscow were going on this whole time?

SANDICK: I think it's very significant. I mean I think there's political significance. It could well have influenced voters if they had known that those discussions were occurring as late as the election, but it's also legally significant. It's legally significant, because it could be inconsistent with what witnesses have told investigators or have told Congress during the course of their investigation.

It's also legally significant because if we are looking for some sort of a quid pro quo relationship, which relates to the other story that you mentioned upfront. One of the things you're going to look for is what were the business discussions between the Trump campaign and Trump personally, on the one hand, and Russia and Russian figures on the other hand.

BURNETT: And I want to get to this Deripaska news in a moment, because in this context, right, it could be significant. Juliette, when we get to the timing though, Giuliani is now saying, "Okay. Okay, if Trump was working on a Moscow tower deal, it didn't impact the campaign promises, right?" The quote was, "It was such a minor matter." It wasn't a minor matter and Felix Sater, a Russian born business associate of Trump says that they even considered gifting Putin a penthouse in Trump Tower Moscow that would be worth $50 million, right, that that was one of the marketing things that had been discussed. And I'm using this to make the point not only Putin being relevant here, but that this was not a small amount of money, minor matter?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: No, it was not minor matter and when it comes to either collusion or corruption, you're out a little bit pregnant. You're either the Trump team and the Trump children who are implicated in this one were negotiating to make a good deal for Trump. And remember Trump is assuming that he's going to lose, so that on the other side of this he's richer and now have consistently lied about it.

And what we can't - whether it's January, June or November, they have lied about it the whole time. The last thing is like this idea that Giuliani has a hypothetical conversation with Donald Trump like I have hypothetical conversations with like Oprah Winfrey and like George Clooney, but I'm not their lawyer, right? This is his lawyer. You don't have hypothetical conversations with your lawyer.

He, I believe, Giuliani spoke the truth and they are trying to clean it up right now, because they have been lying about this deal since day one.

BURNETT: I mean, clearly there's been lying, okay, because the date was before the primaries, and then it was June and now it's - I mean, there's just such inconsistency here.


Some somebody is obviously not telling the truth. But Frank, when Rudy tries to clean this up, right, he says, "Okay, when I said I quoted him and I use the word I and everything, I didn't really mean it. It was hypothetical and I don't really know the exact date, because there's no record of it." And Trump, he doesn't really recall, okay? The thing about Trump is, A, this was an important deal, and B, Trump recalls things, okay? Here he is.


TRUMP: And I have a good memory like a great memory.

People know me for my memory.

I don't have teleprompters here folks. I don't need teleprompters. It's called like up here and it's called memory.


BURNETT: Okay, humorous way of making a serious point. FRANK BRUNI, NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED COLUMNIST: The words of a stable

genius, right? Listen, I honestly think when it comes to Russia and all of these different narratives that Giuliani to Trump they lose track of what they've said because I think - I mean, this sounds cynical but I really believe this, they are lying or spinning so much of the time and in so many different directions that I don't think they can keep an accurate and complete account of what they've said and what they're now contradicting and how they can contradict it and maybe make it seem like they weren't lying before.

But at the end of the day, what we have, and it's the beginning of the end of the story, is you have all of those instances of Trump on tape telling voters, telling us over and over again, "I don't care about Russia. I have no interest in Russia," et cetera and we now have from numerous sources, Giuliani, Michael Cohen, I'm sure Robert Mueller has this evidence that that was not true through the majority of 2016. He was lying, why was he lying? Why did he think he needed to hide it?

BURNETT: Right, and Juliette answer into that, the layer here about Oleg Deripaska, right, who was sanctioned. Obviously, he is also important and central, right, he's one of the man (inaudible) communicating with people to share information with Deripaska. Deripaska has come to the United States in a diplomatic visa. He's that close to Putin, we know that, and yet now all of a sudden they say, "Oh, guess what, we're going to keep the sanctions on his company, but get rid of the personal sanctions on him because he's going to lose all of this money. He's not retaining control." The New York Times is saying there's a confidential document that shows that it's simply not so.

KAYYEM: It is and this is really serious. It means that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin essentially lied to, I think, the Republicans. The Republican Senators who he was trying to get onboard. So I want to make the best case for why the sanctions should have been lifted, because I think a lot of people who don't follow this may think, "Of course, they wanted to lift them because it's the Russians."

The company is actually a global supplier of aluminum. The Europeans were very nervous about too many sanctions. They didn't want this company to fall apart. It is actually an important company we saw. And so the deal was, "Okay, we'll take the sanctions off but he won't benefit," that the leadership will essentially change. And now the New York Times is reporting that that actually wasn't true, these were misrepresentations made specifically to the Senate Republicans, people like Mitt Romney who voted for the lifting of the sanctions and now have mud on their face.

And this is just a lie coming from the Treasury Secretary that's been exposed by the New York Times, very serious for the Treasury Secretary because we know the Treasury Department was not for the lifting of these sanctions, and he overrode them. Why? Once again, do they always want to make these oligarchs happy? I think we know the answer.

BURNETT: Yes. And Harry, that is the big why. SANDICK: Yes, absolutely. I mean, again, if you're looking to try to

figure out it does, the President act like somebody who feels an obligation to do things that are supportive of Putin like we saw in Helsinki or Putin's allies like we're seeing today with Deripaska. That's the way he's acting. He's not acting like somebody who can maybe even as a demonstration of his independence slap back at Putin and his allies. He's doing the kinds of things as Giuliani was saying that are helpful to Putin and his allies.

BURNETT: And, Frank, to anyone watching this when it first was announced, it was very clear that someone like Oleg Deripaska is not going to give this up, right? He would find some way through his allies as they're reporting through others to retain what he wanted.

BRUNI: Right.

BURNETT: Mnuchin is a smart person. He knew that too. He overrode his own Treasury Department. And by the way, I'm assuming there's folks within the Treasury Department who are the ones who are leaking this sort of information.

BRUNI: I think that's probably exactly right. And so if you're a little league coach and everybody says you favor your son, you don't keep putting him batting cleanup, you don't put him in center field. Everyone is saying Trump is favoring Russia, Trump is in their control, and he keeps on showing them preferential treatment, how can that be, right?

BURNETT: And these are the big questions we still don't have the answers to. All right, thank you all very much. And next, Senator Kamala Harris is in.


KAMALA HARRIS, SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES: I am running for president in the United States.


BURNETT: But will her past as a prosecutor haunt her. Plus, the White House pushing ahead with the president's plan to end the shutdown, even though Democrats say no-go. So what's the back-up plan now. I supposed we're coming here on another Friday with zero-zero paychecks. And new video showing what led up to this viral confrontation between a Native American elder and a group of Catholic school students. Does it raise more questions than answers.


Tonight's stand up and fight, Senator Kamala Harris is running for president because she says she feels a responsibility to do that. This comes though as she faces questions about her record as a prosecutor in California. Kyung Lah is OutFront.

KYUNG LAH, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: On the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday at her alma mater, the historically black college of Howard University, Senator Kamala Harris says she can beat President Trump in 2020.


HARRIS: And I feel a sense of responsibility to stand up and fight for the best of who we are and I'm prepared to fight, and I know how to fight.

That's why I'm running for president of the United States.


LAH: California's Junior Senator.




LAH: First elected in 2016 made an early mark with her rapid-fire questions in the Senate from Supreme Court nominees.


HARRIS: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?



LAH: To Justice Department officials.


HARRIS: Yes or no, sir?

ROD RESENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: He has the full independence as authorized by those regulations. Senator, as I've said ...

HARRIS: Are you willing to do as has been done before?


LAH: Making more than one of them squirm.


JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm not able to be rushed this fast. It makes me nervous.


LAH: The native of Oakland says she embodies everything California stands for and what the President is against. She's a daughter of immigrants, a father from Jamaica and a mother from Southern India, both active in the civil rights era.


HARRIS: It was about fighting to make sure that all people had a say in their future.


LAH: As a San Francisco District Attorney, Harris crafted innovative programs to reform the criminal justice system at a time when other prosecutors were taking a tough on crime approach. And despite political pressure from her own party, she refused to seek the death penalty against the killer of a police officer sticking to a core campaign pledge and personal belief.


HARRIS: Chosen to be the next Attorney General at the State of California.


LAH: As California's first black woman Attorney General progressives say Harris was not progressive enough, failing to seek justice for the wrongfully imprisoned. Decisions Harris says were made by attorneys who reported to her.


HARRIS: There were folks who made a decision in my office and had not consult with me and I wish they had, but again I take full responsibility for those decisions.


LAH: A history that is both an asset and an opening for attack. This month at a book tour stop in San Francisco, an audience outburst.


HARRIS: We are so great and ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that she does have to address that because that's a real important issue in the black community.


LAH: Now, she did talk about that several times during that book tour. She said that you can be pro-law enforcement, pro law and order, as well as for reforming the system. She says, Erin, picking one or the other is a false choice. And I did also speak to a number of Democratic analysts who say that what may hurt her or be challenging for progressives now could certainly help her in the general.

BURNETT: Right, of course, the big issue with everyone running to their polls. Thank you so much, Kyung. And now let's go to Marc Short, Former White House Director of Legislative Affairs for President Trump and Political Commentator here, Nina Turner, former Ohio State Senator and CNN Political Commentator also with me.

All right, Nina, so Democrats already pouncing on her, right? Your enemies in the primaries are the ones who can truly bring you down much more so than in the general it seems. Are they legitimate grievances though that might stick?

NINA TURNER, FORMER OHIO STATE SENATOR: I mean, certainly the Senator's decision to run is an inspiration to lots of people. I mean she's a woman of color, she brings a lot to the table. But in terms of her record or anybody's record, it's not a but, and her record. Anybody that served in elected office, their record will be examined and people have or rightfully should examine the record of everybody who has run.

And let me just say this also, Erin, in this space sometimes we don't allow opportunities for people to evolve. We should celebrate if people do truly evolve, but she will have to answer as any other person that is running for the presidency of the United States of America will have to answer for their record. And particularly being a prosecutor in a criminal justice system that is patently unjust and unfair to black folks to brown folks and to poor folks. There will be lots of questions to answer. But as you as you just displayed in a clip, she is certainly willing to take full responsibility for her record and that is a good start.

BURNETT: So Marc, I mean, is she serious in your view, formidable let's say, a formidable challenger?

MARC SHORT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: I think so. I think she's a very formidable challenger. I think that she has an inspiring personal story. I think that she's risen very quickly through the political spheres. She's acquitted herself as Attorney General of California. She's made a prominent statement as a member of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate. I think that she's a very formidable candidate. You don't know until you actually put together a campaign and see how that goes to the ups and downs of the campaign cycle.

I do find it astounding, Erin, that somebody as liberal as Senator Harris perhaps is considered not progressive enough for Democrat Party primary voters. That to me is astounding.

BURNETT: Well, and when you say it's astounding, I will say that is what we're seeing though, Nina, from all of the people running so far, right? Anything that they've done in the past that isn't fully in line with the progressive part of the Democratic Party, we've seen apologies for some of those things. Let me just play a few of the apologies we've seen for those and other things in recent days.


KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, UNITED STATES SENATOR: I realized that things I had said were wrong. TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: In my past, I said and

believe things that were wrong.

BERNIE SANDERS, UNITED STATES SENATOR: To the women are in our campaign who were harassed or mistreated, I apologize.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT: I know we haven't always gotten things right, but I've always tried.


BURNETT: So, Nina, we're talking about immigration for Gillibrand saying that she was wrong, LGBT for Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden criminal justice reform.


Do you believe them now or then? I mean this was not things that were done certainly for Gillibrand and for Biden. They were mature candidates, politicians when they have those beliefs.

TURNER: Yes. I mean, but it's called being human, Erin, and again unfortunately in this political climate it doesn't make a whole lot of room for people to evolve. Now, the question that the voters will have to add or the voters will have to decide is whether the evolution is real ...

BURNETT: Right or they're just saying what they need to say.

TURNER: ... or whether it is really just for political.


TURNER: Whether it's really for political expediency, but I do believe that we ought to make room in this society especially in the political space for people to truly evolve, and that remains to be seen. And in terms of being surprised whether or not somebody is liberal enough or left enough, listen this is a much different country than it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago. We know different things that work better in the criminal justice system. For example, the whole notion of being smart on crime instead of fooling folks that folks are going to be locked up for the rest of their lives, bail reform, those kinds of things.

So, again, everyone who runs no matter who they are will have to answer for their record and they will have to explain what that evolution, the transcendence or how they have evolved on certain issues. But I don't think that there's anything wrong for somebody to say, "You know what? I had it wrong and I want to apologize." But, again, we need to determine whether it's for political expediency or whether it's real.

BURNETT: Marc, who do you think the president would be most concerned about now? He says he loves the idea of Elizabeth Warren, for example, and he'll say that whether it's true or not, but who do you think he should be most worried about? SHORT: Erin, right now so far the candidates I don't see a candidate

he should be worried about. I think the reality is that where the party is going and the Democrat side is so far to the left, it's out of the mainstream. So I think that while she has an inspiring record and while I think she has a aspiring story to tell, I don't think her viewpoints are in the mainstream of America.

BURNETT: All right, thank you both very much. Obviously, a lot more to come on this topic, I'm sure.

TURNER: Thank you, Erin. I'm shaking my head, Erin.

BURNETT: I know I see it. I know I see it, but don't worry well will continue it.

TURNER: Please.

BURNETT: And next no apparent plan B, that's the way things appear tonight. So we're on day 31 and Friday is coming, and more than 800,000 Americans are going to have a second pay period with no paycheck at all. And a man who worked side-by-side with Trump says he knows why the president is not winning the shutdown showdown thus far. He's OutFront.


[19:30:55] ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, the White House saying the Senate is on track to introduce tomorrow the president's new plan to end the shutdown. The vote would then take place on Thursday. The problem is, of course, that this plan likely is headed nowhere. Democrats, so far, say it's a non-starter. The government shutdown now in its 31st day, 31 days without pay for more than 800,000 Americans and yet another paycheck going to have zeros on it on Friday.

Abby Phillip is OUTFRONT live at the White House.

And, Abby, so what is the White House thinking tonight?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, the White House is keenly aware that this second paycheck that federal workers will receive with no money on it is coming up this Friday and they are seeking to really change the dynamic. After President Trump over a month ago said he would own this, it became clear in recent weeks that voters really stood by that. They took him at his word and an effort to really change that dynamic to get Democrats to the negotiating table and make it seem more that President Trump was eager to end the shutdown. The White House introduced this plan but Democrats have said and they have said this from the very beginning, they want to reopen the government before they have any discussions about the border wall or border wall funding.

So, while the president's plan is going to be introduced this week, might be voted on as early as Thursday, there is no expectation on either side that this plan will in fact advance because it won't get enough votes in the Senate and also because Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to take it up in the House, that means that we are really nowhere here. This is day 31. There is no progress being made to end the shutdown and Democrats and Republicans are once again staring at each other in the face and really neither of them getting closer to a resolution.

What we're seeing here is an effort to change the political dynamics around this shutdown more than ending it, Erin.

BURNETT: Abby, thank you very much.

And now I want to go to the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson.

Congressman, I appreciate your time.

Were Democrats too quick to reject the Democrat's proposal before he announced anything?

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D), MISSISSIPPI: Well, clearly, it was nothing new. This is the Trump shutdown. He owns it.

Let's put the workers back to work. They are not rich people. They have mortgages. They have obligations, and to put them in this situation is untenable.

President Trump put those American citizens back to work, then let's sit down like adults and work through these situations. You can't do it on Twitter. You can't do it on Saturday.

Let's do it together around the table and that's the Democratic message. The wall is a non-starter. Let's put the people back to work and then let's sit down and talk.

BURNETT: So, you know, some of the president's supporters see this obviously very differently than you do. In fact, they think he is giving away too much in his offer. Ann Coulter, and we know she's influential with the president. It's part of the reason we're in this situation, right, she said he shouldn't cave to begin with. She tweeted, quote, Trump promises amnesty. We voted for Trump and got Jeb.

What's your response to that?

THOMPSON: Well, you know, we are looking for a pathway to citizenship for a lot of our Dreamers. Let's work through that. A temporary fix that for three years is really not going to get us there.

So, again, the first thing we need to do is put the 800,000 people who are working and not being paid. Let's put them back to work and make sure all of this is taken care of and sit down like adults and work it out. You can't have temper tantrums. You can't do all those other things that we've been watching.

The president said he will own the shutdown. Mr. President, all you have to do is cut it off, put the people back to work, direct people to be paid and then let's sit down and work this out. Some of the things in terms of what I've been hearing make sense like

adding more judges to the court system. So, our system won't be clogged.

[19:35:02] It makes sense. But the border wall is a non-starter.

BURNETT: Now, obviously, you know, a year ago, you all are willing to include some sort of border wall, right, in exchange for a lot of things. What's changed you don't do it in any case at all, considering obviously there is a wall in a lot of places that does work?

THOMPSON: Well, I think let's take our ports of entry. Most of the problems we have with immigration on our southern border, we catch a lot of drugs coming through there. Let's fortify those areas where we know things are happening.

But this notion of a 2,000-mile wall is not who we are as a people. Our value system as Americans is different than there. So again, those areas at ports of entry I agree, let's make them as solid and as fortified as possible, but what the president is talking about is something all together different.

BURNETT: I want to ask you, of course, congressman about today.

Martin Luther King Day, one of your Democratic colleagues in the House, Congressman Hakim Jeffries spoke about the president on this Martin Luther King Day where the president visited Martin Luther King memorial for two minutes, did not mention him by name.

Here is what Hakeem Jeffries had to say.


REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), NEW YORK: We have a hater in the White House, a birther in chief, the grand wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


BURNETT: The grand wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Does that go too far?

THOMPSON: Well, let me tell you, you look at a person's record. The fact checkers have indicated that President Trump has lied over 7,000 times since he's been in office.

He's talked about women. He's talked about minorities. He's talked about every group of people you can imagine. You have to set a higher standard. And so, for so for him to go to Martin Luther King's statute today for two minutes and my understanding is that's all he had on his schedule today, two minutes on a national holiday for a man so great who gave his life for this country to make it a better place, I think it's an insult.

So, a lot of people react differently. Congressman Jeffries has his opinion, we all have our own opinion.

But I can tell you this, the president should do better. He can't talk about people every day and expect people to respect him. That's not being presidential. It's about leadership.

Mr. President, we need leadership from the White House, not someone who's always having temper tantrums.

BURNETT: All right. Chairman Thompson, thank you so much for your time.

THOMPSON: Thank you.

BURENTT: And OUTFRONT next, a former executive of one of Trump's casinos says the president is dealing with the shutdown the same way he did business deals. Jack O'Donnell is OUTFRONT.

A new video shows what may have lead to the stare down between a teenager and Native American elder.


[19:41:56] BURNETT: Tonight, President Trump taunting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, tweeting, quote: If Nancy Pelosi thinks walls are immoral, why isn't she requesting we take down all of the existing walls between the U.S. and Mexico, even the new ones just built in San Diego at their very strong urging. But millions of unchecked strangers just flow into the U.S.

Well, just as how Trump is handling the shutdown and people that have worked with him, say that are not surprised we're in a stalemate here. They say right now, what Trump cares about is not looking like a loser.

OUTFRONT now, Jack O'Donnell, former president and chief operating officer at the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.

Jack, you know, as I said, this is behavior you say is very familiar. You know, what we're reporting now, President Trump lashed out at his chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for how he's handled the shutdown. You've seen similar behavior from him in the past. Tell us about it.

JACK O'DONNELL, FORMER PRESIDENT & CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL & CASINO: Well, I think he's, you know, a man that just digs his heels in and I think that's what he's done here. And in most of the negotiations that I was involved with him, it took an adult on the other side to kind of bring him along.

Unfortunately, in this case, Erin, that's not happening from either side which quite frankly is sad to me, but he is -- he is -- he's dug in on this one and it's what he does. The difference in this situation quite frankly and I think he's perplexed by this is that most of the deals that he negotiates, he relies on back end negotiation, and what I mean by that is, that afterward, his word, he doesn't keep his word. People sue and he settles and gets a better deal later on. He can't see his way to the better deal here so he's dug his heels in.

BURNETT: Because it's different.

But you're saying -- I mean, how do you see this working out given what you saw in the past? I mean, digging his heels in sounds like that's how he did things, right?

O'DONNELL: It's exactly how he did things, but he likes really simple deals. And he likes very quick deals and very often in business, that's what he would get.

I think the longer this goes on, I think it's going to get to him, and I actually do think that there is a compromise here, and I think he'd be open to a compromise. What you have to understand and I think you know this, is that perception to him is really what's critical. And if the Democrats could find a way to show a path toward $5 billion with contingencies and that's the kind of language he understands, I think they could bring him along because he would still be able to say, I got my $5 billion, even if there were strings attached to it.


O'DONNELL: But, you know, and I think that's what it's going to take for him and I think he'll come off that number, I really do because in negotiations and again, they are not really negotiating here. They are both putting up proposals.

BURNETT: It's a stalemate.

O'DONNELL: In a real negotiation, yes.

BURNETT: So, you know, he said several times, furloughed workers, 800,000 Americans, doesn't even count the contractors, right, who aren't getting paid, that they support him. Here he is, Jack.


[19:45:01] DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Many people that aren't getting a payment, that aren't being paid have let us know in the strongest of terms, a big amount, they said, sir, what you're doing is a paramount of importance.

Many of the people that aren't being paid right now are in total agreement with us.

The people that will be paid but maybe a little bit later, those people, many of them are on my side.


BURNETT: Jack, do you see similarities in how he's talking about those, the workers not getting paid and how he dealt with his own employees?

O'DONNELL: Well, Erin, you know, the employees are commodities, they assets there to serve him and that's how he treated employees quite frankly in Atlantic City and I think he's doing the same with the government workers today. I think he believes they can all be replaced, if necessary.

BURNETT: All right. Jack, thank you very much.

Next, a search for truth. The viral video controversy that has a lot of people wondering who and what to believe about this confrontation.

And Jeanne Moos on Trump's go-to defense.


TRUMP: Who cares? Who cares? Who cares? Who cares?



BURNETT: Tonight, new video in that viral confrontation between a high school student and a Native American elder.

[19:50:04] Outrage poured in from around the country, even the Catholic diocese overseeing the school issued a statement condemning the student and tonight that same statement remains on the front page of its website.

Now, the teen on the clip is speaking out, fighting back.

And Sara Sidner is OUTFRONT.


SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): We are now hearing from the chaperones of the Covington Catholic students who came face to face with a Native American elder.

The chaperones are defending the actions of the students and putting the blame on this group of black men hurling insult at the boys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you got these pompous bastards come down here in the middle of a Native rally with their dirty ass hat on.

JILL HAMLIN, PARENT AND CHAPERONE, COVINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL: I can't believe they listened to the vitriol and hatred that was being shouted at them. As a mother, it was horrible. Horrible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our boys did nothing, no violence. They did not attack those people. They stood there waiting for the bus.

SIDNER: Indeed, a small group of black men who identify as Hebrew Israelites did say hateful things to seemingly everyone around them. First, the priests, then the students wearing Make America Great Again hats.

The students watch but do not engage, but more and more students gather and the taunting gets worse.

UNIDENTIFEID MALE: A bunch of incest babies. A bunch of babies made out of incest.

SIDNER: Nick Sandmann, the student at the center of the viral video says the rhetoric is startling.

Because we were being loudly attacked in public, a student asked one of our teacher/chaperones for permission to begin school spirit chances to counter the hateful things shouted at our group, he said.

At one point, a student removes his shirt riling up the students in their school chant.

Two minutes later, you hear a drum beat, that is where Nathan Phillips, the Omaha tribe elder and activist comes in. He is no stranger to conflict. He protested with thousands of others at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access pipeline.

Phillips had just attended the indigenous people's march and said he thought things were getting out of hand. So, he tried to use his Native American music to quell the tension.

NATHAN PHILLIPS, NATIVE AMERICAN DRUMMER: And there was this young group of young students that came there and were offended by their speech and it escalated into an ugly situation that I found myself in the middle of.

SIDNER: The kids danced and began chanting, some do a tomahawk alcohol something the Native American community find offensive.

Phillips moves around the group, beating his drum, soon comes face to face with Sandmann. I believe by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation, Sandmann says. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict.

Both Sandmann and Phillips had every opportunity to separate. Neither do. The Hebrew Israelites continue taunting the kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a bunch of future school shooters.

SIDNER: As the groups separate, you can hear someone with the Native American group say, you stole our land.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just because you stole the land don't make it yours.

SIDNER: And a Catholic student from a different school responds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Land gets stolen, that's how it works.


SIDNER: (AUDIO GAP) the students do not agree. They don't see the things the same way. But they do agree on one point, and that is the source of all of this tension had to do with all of the obscenities being yelled at these kid an hour before you see that face-off in that viral video that came from the Hebrew Israelites.

BURNETT: All right. Sara, thank you very much.

And next, is this the last ditch defense from the president's attorney?


RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: And so what if he talked to him about it?



[19:58:12] BURNETT: There's an old go-to phrase now being used to defend the president.

And Jeanne Moos says, so what?


JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's that last ditch line of defense, two words uttered dismissively to quash any question.

TRUMP: And so what if he talked to him about it?

MOOS: Rudy Giuliani saying --


MOOS: -- when asked if President Trump talked to Michael Cohen about his congressional testimony --


MOOS: -- had reporters saying, what? But so what has lots of cousins, for instance, so without what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting.


MOOS: And Michael Cohen, himself, back in the day when he had candidate Trump's back had his own two word comeback.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But you guys are down.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it makes sense.

COHEN: Says who? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Polls, most of them. All of them.

COHEN: Says who?

MOOS: But so what has another close relative. One President Trump seems especially fond of.

TRUMP: Who cares? Who cares? Who cares? Who cares?

MOOS: The president professed not to care even when told Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called him a racist.

TRUMP: Who scares?

MOOS: "The View" co-host Joy Behar was often portrayed on "SNL" by Fred Armisen saying --

FRED ARMISEN, COMEDIAN: Who cares? So what? Who cares?

So what? Who cares?

MOOS: While Anthony Scaramucci likes to elongate his what?


MOOS: And Hillary uses more elevated language to say pretty much the same thing.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: What difference at this point does it make?

MOOS: It's one thing for Pink.


MOOS: Or Metallica to sing it.


MOOS: But for politicians, it's often the retort of last resort.

COHEN: Says who?


Jeanne Moos.

TRUMP: Who cares?


GIULIANI: So what?

MOOS: New York.


BURNETT: And thanks so much to all of you for joining us. Anderson starts now.