Return to Transcripts main page


U.S. Intel Chiefs Unravel Trump's Claims On The Defeat Of ISIS, Russia Interference, And North Korea and Nukes; Trump's Own Intel Chiefs Contradict Him Repeatedly; Trump's Own Inter Chiefs Contradict Him Repeatedly; McConnell Breaks With Trump On ISIS, Troops In Syria; Roger Stone Pleads Not Guilty In Mueller Probe; Warns Trump; Longtime Trump Ally Roger Stone Pleads Not Guilty In Mueller Probe; Warns Trump "They Are Coming For Him"; Christie Doesn't Think Mueller Probe Is Ending On Roger Stone; New CNN Interview: Howard Schultz Defiant Despite Backlash. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 29, 2019 - 19:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, CNN: ... so just watch this closely, Allison. Thank you very much, Allison Chinchar with the latest forecast and it isn't good. And to our viewers, thanks very much watching. Erin Burnett OutFront starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, ANCHOR, CNN: OutFront next, contradicting Trump, the nation's top intelligence chiefs repeatedly disputing the President's National Security claims. Why is the administration not on the same page about something so crucial? Plus, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaking out in an extensive interview about taxes, immigration and weather 2020 run will guarantee Trump's re-election and Roger Stone pleading not guilty. John Podesta, the man whose emails were hacked by Russia and released fight WikiLeaks is my guest. Let's go OutFront.

And good evening, I'm Erin Burnett. OutFront tonight, countering Trump's intelligence. The nation's most senior intelligence officials testifying to Congress today contradicting President Trump's claims about major National Security threats to America again, and again and again take ISIS.


DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've beaten them and we've beaten them badly. They're all coming back and they're coming back now.


BURNETT: Talking about the troops. On top of this, the President's top intelligence adviser also released this report, it's 42 pages about threats facing the United States and on page 11 he continued on ISIS. "ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria and it maintains eight branches. ISIS very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against adversaries including the United States." Okay, so there's that. It couldn't be more diametrically opposed to each other. Then, take North Korea.


COATS: We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities.

TRUMP: They have a process for getting rid of nukes. They're going to start immediately.


BURNETT: Okay. Well, here's the thing on page eight, it also continues, North Korean leaders, unique nuclear arms is critical to regime survival leaders. Like Kim Jong-Un, the one that Trump is so friendly with. All right, then take Russia.


CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: Not only the Russians continued to do it in 2018, but we've seen indication that they're continuing to adapt their model and that other countries are taking a very interested eye in that approach.

TRUMP: I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.


BURNETT: Okay. Well, then there was also this, they warned about the dangers of climate change. It's also in this report and in it they write, "Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea-level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, degrading infrastructure, threatening infrastructure, health and water and food security." Yet when it comes to climate change, the President of the United States refuses to acknowledge it exists.


PIERS MORGAN, ANCHOR, ITV: Do you believe in climate change? Do you think it exists?

TRUMP: The air is cooling and there is a heating. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now. But now they're setting records.


BURNETT: No. Okay. The deep divide between Trump and America's intelligence community is alarming. It's alarming on those levels and then so many other issues. Kaitlan Collins is OutFront live outside of the White House tonight. I mean, Kaitlan, this is a pretty stunning rebuke and the author on the front, Daniel Coats, top intelligence adviser to the President of the United States, Christopher Wray from the FBI, you saw him there, they all are onboard with this. It is the opposite of what the President has said on issue after issue, has the White House responded?

KAITLAN COLLINS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Yes. We actually asked the White House about what the Director of National Intelligence said about North Korea specifically. They got back to us with this statement from a spokesman saying, "Our goal is to achieve the final fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK as chairman Kim committed to in Singapore."

Now, Erin, one thing missing from that statement is the word irreversible. That's typically what we've heard Secretary of State Mike Pompeo say time and time again that they want to complete verified irreversible denuclearization but really what Dan Coats said today throws cold water on the White House's rosy assessment that they are going to be able to get the North Korean regime to denuclearize and that comes as White House officials are already planning a second summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-Un that they said could happen by the end of February.

Now, Dan Coats added in his statement that his assessment is bolstered by what they've observed that they say is inconsistent with what you would do if you were denuclearizing. But really, Erin, what we're seeing here is we've known for two years there's a gap between the President and his intelligence community.


What we are seeing today and what we saw today is just how deep that divide is between what the President tells reporters, tells the public and what information is being presented to him from the intelligence community.

BURNETT: All right, thank you very much Kaitlan Collins. Starting low with Russian hacking of the election and then it seems on almost everything else. I mean it couldn't be more clear. We observe activity inconsistent with full denuclearization. There is no ambiguity in the statement and it is the opposite of what the President is saying. I want to go now to the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Democratic Congressman Adam Smith.

And Congressman, obviously, you see the report, you hear this testimony. Do you think the President was listening to his intelligence chiefs today?

ADAM SMITH, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Well, I hope so. But this has been a pattern since the President first got into office. He says one thing. The Intel community says another and he has no facts to back him up. It is very, very disturbing that our President does not listen to his own Intel community, but even worse he undermines their credibility. With our international partners, with our adversaries, when they look at the United States how can they trust us, how can they work with us when the President who is in charge is contradicting the very people who we relies on.

BURNETT: And he does do so blatantly, but what they did today was incredibly blatant. They didn't say it behind closed doors, they went in public testimony, they put out a report and they contradicted everything that he has said on these crucial issues. Does that make you worry that they did this in a public forum as if he's not listening privately or does it give you reassurance that they're contradicting him publicly? Where do you fall?

SMITH: Well, the whole thing is worse. Yes it gives me a little bit of reassurance that they are willing to say the truth publicly. But this is not the first time, over and over again the intelligence community has said we have no doubt Russia meddled in our elections and the President has continued to deny it. This has gone on over and over and over again. I hope that the intelligence community continues to do its job, continues to be driven by the facts and reality, and not by the President's fantasy. So it is good when they do that publicly, but it's still a very worrisome situation.

BURNETT: All right, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell today went to the Senate floor and said he is going to offer an amendment that basically is going to say U.S. troops need to stay in Syria and Afghanistan which, of course, is contrary to what the President has said. Mitch McConnell, obviously, crucial person to be taking him on and here's some of what he said.


MITCH MCCONNELL, MAJORITY LEADER: My amendment would acknowledge the plain fact that al-Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to us here at home.


BURNETT: Is that enough? I mean obviously he's with him on other issues, but that he is taking a stand here on the issue of Isis and al-Qaeda in Syria.

SMITH: Well, I want people to understand the issue. The real problem of what the President is doing is there are no facts behind it. He continually says things that are completely untrue like ISIS is defeated, we can go home. And also he makes these decisions without consulting anybody, pulling out of both Syria and Afghanistan was done apparently without even consulting the Department of Defense certainly not our allies.

There is an argument that can be made for reducing the number of troops in Syria in Afghanistan. I'm personally open to that argument, but to do it in a tweet and to think that you can do it in the blink of an eye does not reflect the reality and also it has to be driven by policy, why is he withdrawing the troops, just because three years ago we said he thought we should or is there actually a policy behind to achieve U.S. interests.

Look, I mean, having a huge military presence around the world is something that is concerning to me. If we can responsibly reduce that, I'm open to the argument. But the President hasn't made an argument. He just off the top of his head said, "Let's get out."

BURNETT: All right and, of course, I want to remind everybody he lost incredibly highly regarded Secretary of Defense over that very specific thing, right?

SMITH: Exactly.

BURNETT: Jim Mattis because of that, but when you talk about a lighter footprint, okay, the President is saying he wants to bring troops home, but it doesn't appear at all because he wants to have a lighter footprint. Because, I want to show you this picture, chairman taken yesterday in the White House briefing room, that is a close-up of John Bolton's legal pad in which he writes 5,000 troops to Colombia.

Now, Colombia of course shares a border with Venezuela. By the way, the President has spoken out and talked about military intervention in Venezuela which then secretary Jim Mattis had to come out and say, "I'm sorry, we're not even considering it." But that was awhile ago. Now, this is totally new, 5,000 troops to Colombia.

The White House's response when we asked them about it was as the President said all options are on the table. So what do you think, is that a decent option, sending 5,000 Americas to Colombia?

SMITH: And again what are our National Security interests in Venezuela, what hisses explanation for the policy. They're seems to be being made on whims, and fantasies and no reality behind it. The idea that we're going to go in and do battle in Venezuela over who should be running that country, I don't see a single U.S. National Security argument from doing that.


And the President hasn't yet made one. So, yes, these ...

BURNETT: But yet in Syria and Iraq where there are those arguments he wants to remove those troops.

SMITH: Exactly.

BURNETT: And by the way, I will make it clear, 5,000 troops would be more than we have in Syria right now.

SMITH: Yes. Roughly 2,000 in Syria right now. So there is an utter absence of policy behind the President's decisions in what he says. He doesn't seem to have a National Security strategy. He has what he feels like doing when he gets up in the morning and again that is a very, very difficult way for the United States to achieve its National Security interests, whether we're talking about in Latin America or dealing with ISIS or dealing with Afghanistan. We just want a clear coherent policy and we don't have that from the President.

BURNETT: All right, Chairman Smith, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

SMITH: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next the President's longtime confidant Roger Stone pleading not guilty in the Russia probe. Sam Nunberg, Roger Stone protege is my guest. Plus, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaking out about his possible independent run, slamming his potential rivals. His interview, he's speaking to CNN, you'll see it OutFront with Poppy Harlow is next. And tonight, is Hillary Clinton leaving the door open on 2020? A former campaign chair, John Podesta, is OutFront.

New tonight, Roger Stone pleading not guilty in court today after being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He says he's innocent of making false statements, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. This comes as Stone warns President Trump, there is a "speeding bullet heading for his head."



ROGER STONE, DONALD TRUMP ASSOCIATE: This isn't about me, Alex, it's about the President. They're coming for him and they want to silence me because I see the big picture. I lived in 1974, I worked for Richard Nixon, I saw that takedown. It was very, very similar. The President needs to wake up. This is a speeding bullet heading for his head."


BURNETT: Not mincing words there. All right, I'm joined now by Sam Nunberg, former Trump campaign aide who also says Roger Stone was his mentor, also appeared before Mueller's grand jury, who have answered a lot of questions for them. Also with me former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Harry Sandick and CNN Political Correspondent Sara Murray.

Sam, let me start with you, you just heard Roger Stone, all right, he's not mincing any words, a speeding bullet heading for the President's head. Do you think he's right? Should President Trump be worried?

SAM NUNBERG, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE: I think President Trump should definitely be worried. I think that Robert Mueller is going to lay out a case. It doesn't mean, Erin, that I personally agree with this case. He's going to lay out a case of a conspiracy to defraud America. He's going to say that the President knew that the Russians had hacked these emails not that the President was involved with it, that people at the campaign we've already seen this indicated ...

BURNETT: You're saying that he was briefed and aware and people are not.

NUNBERG: And people looking into it and that therefore as Jerry Nadler has said, that this was something ill-gotten gains to win the election. That's what I think is coming.

BURNETT: So Sara in that context with Sam saying Roger Stone pleaded not guilty today to Mueller's charges and those are witness tampering, obstruction of justice, lying under oath but not yet including something like conspiracy. Do you think it's possible there are more charges Stone could face.

SARA MURRAY, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's certainly possible. Roger Stone likes to point out, there's no Russian collusion. There's no conspiracy charge there and that is true, but they still want to get testimony from Andrew Miller, a former associate of Stone who's challenging his grand jury subpoena. So that tells you that they're trying to get testimony perhaps to bring more charges against Roger Stone. We don't know what those charges will look like. We don't know if prosecutors will successfully bring those charges, but it certainly tells you that Mueller's team is pursuing more there and then we wait to see what that might look like.

Remember they also searched Roger Stone's homes in Florida as well as New York as well as his storage facility. So they're going to be looking through whatever they've gotten from these searches and that may lead them to bring additional charges as well.

BURNETT: Which is interesting, Harry, because if you were done, you wouldn't need to grab all of that information and keep looking. You charge later, so theoretically they could still be looking and Stone is the 34th person to be charged so far by Mueller. Now, the acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker said I think out of turn, I think he didn't realize what he was doing there was he thought the investigation was close to being completed.

But now former Trump supporter, Trump transition whatever he was, leader Chris Christie, former New Jersey Governor says that this investigation is not done. Here he is.


CHRIS CHRISTIE: Matt probably knows more than anybody else in the country other thanBob Mueller about it. So I'm going to take Matt's word for it, but Bob Mueller doesn't feel to me like he's almost done. I feel that he's ending on Roger Stone, but it might be.


BURNETT: Could there be more indictments?

HARRY SANDICK, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: There could be more indictments. We know there's certain investigative leads that are out there. Andrew Miller is a grand jury witness they're trying to compel. There's the mystery we've talked about here about the foreign owned corporation, that's gone all the way up to the Supreme Court. There's going to be evidence there. There's evidence in the Stone search warrant.

This is one of those everyone could be true, even though the investigation is certainly a mature investigation and many people have been charged and we may have less to come than has been already occurring in the past, at the same time there's so many open doors for investigation, it's hard to say it's ending like it's ending tomorrow.

BURNETT: And Sam, one of the reasons that people keep saying this isn't done yet is something that's actually in the indictment of Roger Stone, right?


BURNETT: The key paragraph, "After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen emails by WikiLeaks, a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information WikiLeaks had about Clinton." Okay, so just to be clear here, that's a senior Trump campaign official was directed, okay, so who's more senior than a senior Trump campaign official? Who are you talking about here? Senator Blumenthal says, "Well, that's either Donald Trump or Donald Trump Jr." I mean who do you think it could be?

NUNBERG: I don't know who it is, but it certainly not somebody who was formerly with the campaign and therefore it could be President Trump. But I think having seen what Rudy Giuliani has done and I don't think he gets credit for this, sometimes I think he's doing it masterfully is playing the bar out so far, for instance saying Trump Tower negotiations may have started as early as the campaign started. That would be news to me having to been there.

BURNETT: Right, so no one is shocked when it comes out but he starts it and gets the shock factor started early, so then it's --

NUNBERG: Let me say very quickly, Erin, every indictment that has referenced someone that they have not been in that indictment has ultimately been indicted or has cut a deal.


Roger was referenced in a previous indictment with the GRU. Okay, so I still think things are coming and the grand jury as we know, as you reported is still open, Aaron Zelinsky had a grand jury session and then he flew the Florida.

BURNETT: Yes. I mean, that is an interesting point that Roger Stone and I remember he came on the show and he's like, "Yes, that's me." I mean there's a person, whatever it was, he assumed it was him and it was and now, of course, he has been charged. So that's an interesting points that makes. I mean when Stone was asked, Harry, today if he's expecting the President to reach out to him. I want to play for you what he said. This is interesting.


STONE: No, I think his lawyers would tell him it would be a bad idea. My lawyers have told me not to communicate with him. But can watch the news, and what he sees is the truth. And again, I'm not saying I'm covering up for the President which some people have tried to say, I'm saying I won't make up lies about him.


BURNETT: But it's interesting, Harry, it seems like what he is saying is I'm communicating via these media interviews with the President. SANDICK: Yes. He is and we've seen Trump communicating with him

through tweets. Back in December, there was the tweet something along the lines of Roger Stone is standing strong and he's not going to say anything to hurt me or something like that. So they're communicating with each other not in the classic sort of obstruction sense like a secret back channel that no one knows about.

BURNETT: No, ironically in this new world it's the most public of all channels.

SANDICK: That's right, right out in the open and then people's lawyers in the future will say, "No. No. No, there was no secret communication. Nothing was hidden from anyone." But they are communicating in this way.

BURNETT: And Sara, it is interesting that thus far the President has also stood strong by Stone, right, unlike say Michael Cohen where he did until he didn't.

MURRAY: That's right and it's clear that Stone right now is not cooperating with investigators. It's not even clear investigators would want him to cooperate. Look, there's a reason that these two guys have had this relationship that spans many decades. Stylistically they can be very similar and I think that Donald Trump sees this sort of defiance from Roger Stone and he likes that kind of a fighting spirit. So I think as long as Roger Stone is out there, insisting that he's not ever going to testify against President Trump and bring it on, I think that the President will be very happy with it.

BURNETT: And you believe, Sam, he'll remain defiant?

NUNBERG: Yes, I think he will remain defiant. I think also Roger's personality is that he will love to have the "political trial" of the century and he will have a witness list, he will have a long drawn-out trial. And as Roger Stone, Donald Trump, Roy Cohn, people like - we believe that trials are always made to be won.

BURNETT: All right, thank you all. And next, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaking out to CNN about the incredible backlash over him considering to run for the White House.


HOWARD SCHULTZ, FORMER STARBUCKS CEO: People are worried and I understand that, that potentially this could end up reelecting Donald Trump.


BURNETT: But - and his former Obama colleagues accuse him of jumping on the Howard Schultz's train just for the money. Former Obama, Bill Burton, will respond OutFront.

[19:25:00] New tonight, Howard Schultz speaking out to CNN in an interview with

our Poppy Harlow. He's doubling down on this possible run for the White House and attacking the Democrats who are slamming him.


POPPY HARLOW, ANCHOR, CNN: Why do you think Medicare for all in your words is not American.

SCHULTZ: It's not that it's not American, it's unaffordable. So let me be very clear.

HARLOW: Because you called it not American early --

SCHULTZ: Healthcare has been central to my entire life. We've just talked about that. The first company in America to provide comprehensive health insurance to part-time people, I know a lot about this issue. It's deeply in my heart. Now, what I believe is that every American has the right to affordable healthcare as a statement. I also believe that the Affordable Care Act under President Obama was the right thing to do to provide over 30 million people who did not have insurance to get insurance.

But now that we look back on it, the premiums have skyrocketed and we need to go back to the Affordable Care Act, refine it and fix it. In addition to that, we need corporations to have more skin in the game. We talked about that earlier and we must have self-interest and the lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical companies come to the table with a level of transparency to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

HARLOW: So the price tag on it whether you look at the urban institute numbers of the latest numbers are 32 trillion for Medicare for all over a decade, but Senator Sanders says of his plan, yes, you pay more in taxes for it, the healthcare savings that Americans are spending to private insurers is 2 trillion, you say.

SCHULTZ: This is not true.

HARLOW: I'm interested in what you would do and what you would propose as President for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in this country, not just the dreamers. What would you do?

SCHULTZ: First off, I agree with the Republicans completely that we need strict, stiff border security ...

HARLOW: But not a wall.

SCHULTZ: ... but not with a wall which is insanity, so I agree. I also agree with the Republicans, not the Democrats that ICE has a major role to play in this. But Republicans want to strip mothers from babies and put kids in internment camps. I don't agree with that. I think it's unamerican for the dreamers not to have a pathway to citizenship and they should be given that, with regard to the 11 million people who are unauthorized, let them get in line, pay taxes, pay a fee and over time give them the opportunity to become Americans. HARLOW: But they remain under a Shultz presidency if you had your

brothers - those 11 million undocumented immigrants would remain in this country on a path to citizenship?

SCHULTZ: Correct.

HARLOW: In the final analysis if you run, Howard, and if you run you take more away from Democrats than Republicans and we don't know what that would be and I've looked at all the polling back to the exit polls with Ross Perot, we just don't know.

SCHULTZ: This isn't Ross Perot.

HARLOW: But if that's final analysis ...


HARLOW: ... that President Trump gets a second term and that you pulled more from Democrats, would that keep you up at night?

SCHULTZ: I would never put myself in a position where I would be the person who reelects Donald Trump, but that is not what I believe today.


BURNETT: Fascinating, I mean, Poppy and that obviously is such a crucial question and you mentioned Ross Perot.


You also talked to him about Michael Bloomberg.


BURNETT: Someone who thought about running as an independent last time around against Donald Trump.

HARLOW: My jaw dropped when he said this to me. He offered up to me, he said, Poppy, if Mike Bloomberg ran two years ago as an independent, I think he would have won. I said, Howard, Mike Bloomberg didn't even think that.

He said he looked at the data and he couldn't win as an independent. He said I disagree with that. He pointed to the polling with more than 40 percent of Americans identifying as independent now. He thinks that and I will tell you that I then asked, OK, so if Mike Bloomberg jumps in the race, the more centrist Democrat, does that mean Howard Schultz doesn't run. His answer, Mike Bloomberg has nothing to do with my decision to run or not.

BURNETT: Wow, that is fascinating.

HARLOW: We'll see.

BURNETT: Wow, that's really interesting that he thinks that Michael Bloomberg could have won. I think a lot of people watching and by the way, I want everyone to know, your full interview on your show tomorrow. We're going to see a lot more of this.


BURNETT: So, excellent. And thank you so much for sharing with us.

HARLOW: Sure, absolutely.

BURNETT: I want to go to someone who will be in the center of the Howard Schultz decision, political adviser Bill Burton, who served as deputy press secretary under President Obama.

And, you know, in the last section there when Poppy was asking Howard Schultz about Ross Perot and this whole independent, it's getting at the heart of the anger out there right now, OK? I'm going to be direct here. I've known you for a long time.

Your former Obama White House colleague David Axelrod tweeted: One thing you can be sure of, the consultants who sign on with the Howard Schultz campaign may help facilitate the second Trump term, but surely, they will make enough to keep themselves in overpriced coffee drinks for life. And another former Obama aide tell CNN: No amount of money would be worth doing this.

OK. They're saying you're doing this for the money. What do you say?

BILL BURTON, POLITICAL ADVISER TO HOWARD SCHULTZ: Well, I can guarantee that I will make less money in this effort than David Axelrod made on the Obama campaign.

Look, I mean, we can talk about money all day long. I'm helping out as an adviser and consulting him in this decision while he's on this journey, and it's an awesome journey to be on. But I'm here because I think he's a great guy and he's got a great story to tell, and he is going to be going around the country talking to people about what his vision is and how we can make politics better, how we can make our government better and actually work for the American people.

BURNETT: So, he's there for the right reasons in your view?

BURTON: A hundred percent.

BURNETT: OK. So, in an op-ed, you wrote actually, because there's party problem in this country and it's been a problem, right? It would be nice if a third party, it never happens, because the math never works.

You wrote: In the same way I would bet that Ralph Nader, or at least maybe his supporters wishes that he didn't want to make George W. Bush our 43rd commander in chief, I suppose Jill Stein supporters would not want to be in a position of explaining to their kids how they helped make Trump president.

OK. In the end, Stein gets more votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Bill. You know this better than anyone. More than Trump's margin of victory, right? So, you remove Stein, one could make a very big argument that Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States.

What if Schultz is the new Stein?

BURTON: The big difference between Howard Schultz and Jill Stein or Ralph Nader is that they argue about the two candidates were too similar, right? I don't think that's the problem now. Howard Schultz doesn't think that's the issue, which is why he's explaining this way. He thinks the parties are so polarized and so far apart from each other that the majority of the American is what's together, and what's similar. And if he's just going out and asking the question, well, is there a better way to help focus that energy?

BURNETT: You say the problem is change. Then, they were too similar, they were enough at the polls, but you couldn't unite the polls in one candidate. You're saying the whole is in the wide middle?

BURTON: I'm saying the politics is different and I'm saying that their motivations were different. Howard Schultz is in this because he believes most Americans agree on most of the big issues.

BURNETT: All right. So, the president wants Shultz to get in, OK, because he thinks it will help him. So, he said -- he tweeted that he didn't have the guts to be president. Maggie from "The New York Times" reported that Trump told the crowd that he was trying to get Howard Schultz into the race with his tweet, you know, saying he has no guts, because he thinks he'll help him.

BURTON: It's hilarious. I mean, look, here's a problem, is you have a president who is setting an awful tone on Twitter. It's just taking everybody else down in the gutter with him. Howard didn't respond to that tweet because he doesn't think that childish games deserve a response. And he's not going to respond to a lot of the childishness on the Internet.

BURNETT: So, is that the strategy, because, you know, when it comes to Trump, this is a tough one. People who don't respond get beaten like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. But when you do respond like Marco Rubio, you look smaller when you do so.

No one seems to figure out how to deal with him. You lose when you respond. You'll lose when you don't.

BURTON: I'm not taking it off the table that he'll ever respond to a Trump tweet. It's so foolish we have to talk about it, but I'm saying he is trying to elevate this debate. There's nothing more than him for beating Donald Trump. He thinks he's fundamentally unfit for office and will do anything he can to stop it.

BURNETT: All right. Bill Burton, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BURTON: Thank you.

BURNETT: All right. And you can listen to Poppy's full interview with Howard Schultz on her CNN podcast "Boss Files", and as I said, also, on her show tomorrow, with Poppy and Jim Sciutto tomorrow.

[19:35:03] And all of that is tomorrow morning.

And next, the man whose e-mail was hacked by Russia and released by WikiLeaks responds to Roger Stone's plea today. John Podesta is OUTFRONT.

And the shocking rise of measles in this country due in large part to people who do not vaccinate their children. How can this happen? Sanjay Gupta is OUTFRONT.


BURNETT: Tonight, quote, it might now be Roger Stone's time in the barrel. That is what Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman John Podesta saying about Roger Stone, as you see in an op-ed with "The Washington Post". It was John Podesta's e-mails, of course, which were hacked by Russia and leaked by WikiLeaks.

According to Robert Mueller's indictment, Roger Stone wanted those e- mails out. The time in the barrel line refers to an August 2016 tweet in which Stone writes: Trust me, it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel.

Well, OK, OUTFRONT now, John Podesta. This is his first interview since Roger Stone was indicted.

John, good to see you again. I appreciate your time.

You know, I want to play for you what happened again the other morning. It's sort of incredible moment captured live when the FBI arrested Roger Stone.

[19:40:05] Here it is.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FBI, open the door.


BURNETT: When you saw that, what went through your head? Stone was arrested and indicted?

JOHN PODESTA, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF CLINTON CAMPAIGN, WIKILEAKS RELEASED HIS HACKED EMAILS: As I said in my "Washington Post" op-ed, you know, I don't -- vengeance doesn't run deep in my veins but I had a smile on my face then because I think Stone has been lying for a very long time and I think it's finally caught up with him, that the indictment that Mueller and his team put forward is really devastating. It's relying not just on testimony from others who he might impugn but direct e- mails and tweets -- excuse me, and texts that Mr. Stone sent to his confederates.

So, I think he's in a whole world of hurt. And as I said, I think that barrel he find himself in is about to go over Niagara Falls. BURNETT: So, OK, so I got to ask you, though, because when you say

it's a devastating an indictment, and in many ways it was. But in it, as you know, John writes, he's charged with false statements, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, but not with conspiring with Russia which, of course, is at the heart of this whole investigation. Those charges are not in there.

You know, you obviously, you know, got a firm to the investigation, Russia hacked. You knew that. Do you think it's possible that Stone did not knowingly collude with Russia? Is it possible that charge isn't there because Mueller doesn't think it happened?

PODESTA: Well, by the time the Trump campaign was directing him to get in touch with WikiLeaks, it was well known the Russians had been behind the hacks at the DNC.

BURNETT: That's true.

PODESTA: So, I think, again, we has not charged with conspiracy but there's no question there was collusion going on and they were attempting even knowing that Russia was attacking the American democracy. They were attempting to encourage that, to stimulate that. Mr. Trump famously said -- pleaded with Russia to try to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mails and we now know based on previous indictment from Mr. Mueller that on the very day he said that, that Russians went in and tried to hack her e-mails.

BURNETT: All right. So, you know, you're sitting there during this campaign, you know, sort of embattled with the Trump campaign, Clinton campaign and Trump campaign. In the indictment, Roger Stone indictment, Mueller says a person directed a senior Trump campaign official, right? That's exactly the way he says it, directed the official to contact Roger Stone to get more dirt from WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton. OK?

And that sense is every one honing in on perhaps the most important sentence in the whole indictment, because it begs the question who could be more senior then a senior campaign official. Again, this is the campaign you were facing off on, it's sort of like on the football field, right? It's your job to know everything about everybody in their role. Who is the person, do you think, that directed the senior campaign Trump campaign official to do this?

PODESTA: Well, look, I think only Mr. Mueller and his team knows the answer to that question. But if you're directing a senior official, there aren't very many suspects. And whether that was Mr. Trump himself, Don Jr. or somebody else, we don't know. I think we have to wait Mr. Mueller's final report to get the answer to that question.

And, you know, these grand juries are ongoing. The investigation is ongoing. I know acting Attorney General Whittaker says it's about to wrap up but we don't know that.

And again, we have to wait to see Mr. Mueller's even very methodical in his approach to this. He's gotten a number of guilty pleas. And again, this was a culture of lying, culture of corruption. I think the house of lies are really beginning to fall in on themselves.

BURNETT: I want to ask you, John, about the 2020 campaign. I don't know if you just heard Howard Schultz, but, you know, he was talking about Medicare for all and why he will consider running, despite the vitriol that's been levied at him over that idea. His political adviser Bill Burton was just on as well. Question to you, should Schultz run?

PODESTA: No, I don't think he should run. I think it's -- I heard Bill say he's not doing it for the money. I guess he's doing it because the weather is nice in Seattle.

But I think that Mike Bloomberg got this right. An independent can't win. All he'll do is end up splitting the Trump vote. I would think that, you know, Mr. Schultz would rather have his legacy the fact he became a billionaire selling Frappucino than he helped get Donald Trump re-elected president of the United States.

BURNETT: Well, when you put it that way.

All right. Before we go, Jeff Zeleny is reporting that Hillary Clinton is not closing the door on running for 2020.

[19:45:01] Do you think she would actually do it?

PODESTA: Look, she said, first of all, I love her. I wish he was president. She got three million more votes than Donald Trump did. She would have been a great president.

But she says she's not running for president. I think this is media catnip. She's in Puerto Rico trying to help the people that Donald Trump has abandoned through the Clinton Foundation, trying to bring some relief to the people of Puerto Rico.

You know, I think, in a word, I don't -- she's not running for president. We got a lot of great candidates out there right now. I think the Democratic primary is going to be a spirited one with a lot of great ideas coming forward. And as I said, you know, I think she would have been great president. But that's in the past and she said she's not running.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much. Good to talk to you, John.

PODESTA: Thanks, Erin.

BURNETT: And next, the measles outbreak is spreading. We have new cases reported tonight in several states. How the anti-vaccination movement is hurting our nation's security. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is next.

Plus, Jeanne Moos on what is the state of our nation.


JEANN MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Fill in this blank. The State of the Union is --




BURNETT: New tonight, a state of emergency due to measles.

[19:50:02] It is in the state of Washington and it's because of people not vaccinating their children, which is a big problem.

Right now in the county in crisis in Washington state, 7.9 percent of children are not vaccinated and it may not sound like a lot, but it is because when it comes to vaccinations in order for an entire group to be safe. you need to have what's called herd immunity. And that means 95 percent of the population must be vaccinated. So, when the number dips below, people get sick and people can die. So, you can do that math -- 7.9 percent below 95 percent then vaccinated and people's lives are at risk.

The truth is vaccines are safe, they're important, and they save lives. I just want to show this line. This is an aerial. It's all the way back in 1962, pre-drones. Look at that line.

People are waiting to get the polio vaccine. And just imagine that now, people waiting for a vaccine. Well, we can't imagine it because we've been lulled into a false sense of security. Those people were waiting because they knew if they did not get that vaccine, they could get polio and not ever walk again.

Diseases like polio and measles have been stopped with vaccines and people who do not vaccinate now, as I said, have been lulled into a false sense of security by decades of safe and effective widespread vaccinations. And by making a decision not to vaccinate, they are not just putting their own families at risk, they may not realize that they are putting others around them at risk too.

CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, is OUTFRONT.

And, Sanjay, what's happening in Washington state, and these are outbreaks that have been happening in various pockets around the country, but what's happening there right now is alarming.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: No question, and, Erin, that was a really good overview, really good points. The state of Washington is in a state of emergency due to measles. And take a look at this map here. Clark County, you're going to see specifically.

As you look at this, keep in mind that back in 2000, we had effectively gotten rid of measles in the United States. So, to see any numbers at all is something that shouldn't necessarily be happening.

We also know that, Erin, between the time that someone is exposed to measles, one of the most contagious viruses on the planet, between the time you're exposed and the time you develop symptoms, several days can pass. What can happen during those days? You can move around.

So, we know, for example, many of the people who were likely exposed to the measles virus, they went to a basketball game, to airports, hospitals, schools, stores, churches, restaurants. You can see why the state of emergency exists. Now, you got to go back and figure out, might you have been exposed. Be on the lookout for symptoms because that's how you can keep this from spreading in any further.

And again, I just want to make that point again that you made. Oregon and Washington state are both what are called personal exemption, personal belief exemption states, meaning that you can exempt from having the vaccine on your personal beliefs. So, 7.9 percent of the population saying they're going to forego the vaccine. They're not going to get it because of personal beliefs.

And that's part of the problem. You know, Erin, public health experts told me that they could have predicted this happening in the northwest because of those exceptions some time ago.

BURNETT: Which is pretty scary. I mean, Sanjay, how do you get through to people? They look at a completely debunked study again and again and again debunked study, right, that linked a vaccine to autism, completely false. And yet, still, it is influencing people to make a decision which can hurt their own children and put the lives of others around them at risk?

GUPTA: It was bad science. Some say it was a lie frankly. We're talking about the Wakefield study that found this link between autism and vaccines. It's simply not true.

I'll tell you a couple of things. I mean, I've been reporting on this for a long time. People shouldn't hedge or equivocate on this. People sort of sometimes, even people in the medical community equivocate a little bit. Let me show you the results of I think one of the most important studies. This is what's called a meta analysis.

They looked at lots of studies and basically over 1 million children essentially were looked at trying to see if you analyze the data, is there a link? Just look at these sentences on here. No relationship between vaccination and autism spectrum disorder. You know, we're running out of time.

But no relationship period between thimerosal and mercury. No relationship with the MMR vaccine. It just doesn't exist. That is not a reason you should not vaccinate your children.

BURNETT: No, it isn't. I hope people hear that and take warning. Thank you very much, Sanjay.

GUPTA: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next, tonight was supposed to be President Trump's State of the Union. So, instead, we got one from Jeanne.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [19:57:52] BURNETT: Tonight is the night Trump was supposed to give his State of the Union, but he's got to wait a week, but we didn't want to make you wait a week so tonight we bring you the State of the Union by Jeanne.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Since the State of the Union is missing, we figure why not let regular people play the part of --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president of the United States --

MOOS: You know, when the president goes up to the podium and says.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: The State of Our Union is strong.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: The State of Our Onion is strong.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: The State of Our Union is strong.

MOOS: Presidents almost always say strong, though occasionally they dial it back.

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT: The State of Our Union is sound.

GERALD FORD, FORMER PRESIDENT: The State of the Union is not good.

MOOS: But by the next year --

FORD: The State of Our Union is better, but still not good enough.

MOOS: So, what state are we in today?

Depends who you ask.

Fill in this blank, the state of the union is --



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chaotic and entertaining.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chaotic and dismal.

MOOS: The State of the Union is?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unstable, right?

MOOS: In his first State of the Union, President Trump declared.


MOOS: The State of the Union is?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In grave danger.

MOOS: Online, some used gifts to portray the State of the Union as a train wreak, or a dumpster fire or a floating dumpster fire.

But others were less in the dumps.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything is fine as far as I'm concerned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're hanging in there.

MOOS: Even presidents have taken a glass half-full approach.

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The State of Our Union is strong, but our economy is troubled.

MOOS: Back before social media, Ronald Reagan didn't have to put up with comments like screwed with a glimmer of hope.

The State of the Union is --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's messed up.



MOOS: Crap?


MOOS: Crock.

Someone even used space to describe our state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Houston, we have a problem.

MOOS: Apollo 13 made it back in one piece. So will our union, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got multiple caution and warning, Houston.

MOOS: Jeanne Moos, CNN --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a wicked shimmy up here.

MOOS: -- New York.


BURNETT: And thank you so much for joining us. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

"AC360" starts now.