Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Threatens To Shut Down Southern Border Next Week; Rep. Sean Casten (D) Illinois Discussed About President Donald Trump's Plan To Close Southern Border As Well As Its Repercussions; Democrats Demand Release Of Full Report By April 2nd; Immigration Activist Stops ICE From Arresting Two Migrants; Police Give Few Answers After Little Girl Dies In School Fight; Cook Co. States Atty. "Welcomes" Outside Review Of Case. Aired 7-8a ET

Aired March 30, 2019 - 07:00   ET


[07:00:00] COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS REPORTER: -- But he had North Carolina winning it now. They're done now. Look out.

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Apparently, we have to drink when we make our picks.


WIRE: Happy Saturday.

PAUL: Thank you, Coy.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The collusion delusion is over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we have right now is the four-page Barr report. What we actually need is the Mueller report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is obstruction of justice is still on the table and that is something these committees will get into.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's ample evidence of collusion in plain sight.

TRUMP: The Democrats have to now decide whether they will continue defrauding the public.

So, Mexico's tough. They can stop them. And if they don't stop them, we're closing the border.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And if they don't, we will be closing the border or large sections of the border next week.


ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY WEEKEND with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul. PAUL: Take a nice deep breath because Saturday is upon you. And now,

we're talking about mid-April.


PAUL: Because that's when the Justice Department says Congress, the public, the White House, all will get their first look at the redacted Mueller report.

BLACKWELL: Attorney General Bill Barr says the redacted process is happening right now with help from Robert Mueller. And he says they may finish going over the nearly 400-page report before mid-April. And then, after the release, Barr said he'd be open to testifying to Congress starting on May 1st.

PAUL: Now, the southern border meanwhile, along their officials say their resources are strained. President Trump says, if Mexico doesn't step up, he's closing down the border as early as next week. CNN's Natasha Chen is with us now. So, tell us more about what the president said... and good morning.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Christi, President Trump did threaten to close the border. And like this is port right here, this is the Hidalgo Port of entry in McAllen. We've seen people start to cross to Mexico this morning, as a lot of people in border towns do business on both sides. Now, the president yesterday ramped up the rhetoric on Twitter, criticizing the U.S.'s weak immigration laws. And like you said, he claims that if Mexico doesn't stop all illegal immigration from their side, he says he would close the border.


TRUMP: We're not going to give them hundreds of billions of dollars and tell them that they're not going to use their strong immigration laws to help the United States. So, there's a very good likelihood that I'll be closing the border next week. And that will be just fine with me.


CHEN: A senior homeland security official says for now, the department is pulling resources from ports like this to assist with the influx of people coming in between ports of entry illegally. So, that's going to affect business here at ports like this. But for now, that plan doesn't fully close the ports for now. That official did say, the closure of the border is still on the table, Victor, Christi.

PAUL: All right, Natasha Chen, appreciate the report. Thank you.

BLACKWELL: All right, joining me now to discuss, Congressman Sean Casten, Democrat from Illinois. Congressman, welcome to NEW DAY.

REP. SEAN CASTEN (D), ILLINOIS: My pleasure. Nice to see you.

BLACKWELL: So, let's start here with your general reaction, then we'll get more into immigration policy. Your reaction to the president's promise that if Mexico doesn't crack down that he will close the border.

CASTEN: Look, it's tragic. It's dumb. We do -- we do business with Mexico every day. I don't know on what basis it makes economic sense to close the border. These are real families, these are real people. And at the end of the day, we've got to recognize that we are at a point right now where illegal border crossings are at historic lows. There are more people, illegal crossing, on northern border than our southern border. Look, it's just racist, is all I can say about it. It's tragic that we even have to have this conversation right now.

BLACKWELL: So, let's talk about the numbers, because you say that the border crossings are at historic lows. But we're seeing for the month of February and March, we're seeing highs. Actually, the Customs and Border Protection says that March is on track for 100,000 encounters and apprehensions this month. 90 percent of whom will be for illegal border crossings. 40,000 Children added into CBP custody this month alone. You oppose the national emergency to build the wall. You're obviously against closing the border. So, then what is the plan to address the influx at the southern border?

CASTEN: Look, we've got to stop describing there as being an influx. If you look over the last decade going through most of the Obama administration, there has been a steady decline. The majority of undocumented immigrants in this country right now are people who overstay their visas. They're not border crossings. The majority of the actual contraband that comes across the border in illegal activity, comes through our ports of entry, not through walls.

We have very consistently, I think, both parties have advocated for beefing up protection at ports of entry. I think lots of reasonable people will acknowledge that we live in a three-dimensional country. And a two-dimensional wall doesn't prevent people from coming over, under or around. And we can do lots of intelligent things there. But the truth is we have a -- we have a historically very friendly and solid and robust relationship with our neighbors to the south.

[07:05:36] BLACKWELL: What are those very intelligent things, what are the plans? What are the suggestions? And when you say that there's a decline, there was a decline for a long period, but we're seeing the numbers creep up again from the numbers from the CBP. I mean, so what is the plan? What are the suggestions?

CASTEN: If you look at what was proposed for border security and what was agreed to both in this Congress and in prior congresses, there has been a very consistent and bipartisan willingness to expand technology used at the ports of entries to make sure that officials at ports of entry can scan trucks and vehicles coming through. And that's fine, and we should do that. Putting walls in places where people typically cross where it's actually hard to get vehicles across -- are there places where we need to beef it up? Sure.

And if you talk to members like Will Hurd or (INAUDIBLE) who have a lot of border in their district, you'll generally find a lot of bipartisan agreement there. But the idea that we need to spend, you know, billions of dollars walls where people generally don't come across, the president talked about it as a campaign pledge. He talked about Mexico paying for it. He did not persuade Mexico. He didn't persuade the American people and he didn't persuade Congress, and we didn't authorize funding for that.

BLACKWELL: All right, I have you for a short period of time, I want to move on to another topic here and this is the Mueller report. We know from Attorney General Barr that the redacted report will be coming sometime in mid-April, and he's offered himself up to testify before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

And Sally Yates, Former Deputy A.G. has an op-ed out in the Washington Post this morning where she says that a redacted report is appropriate, that there should be redactions for classified information, also grand jury testimony. Do you disagree with that, that there should be or should not be redaction for those specific elements that are typically -- I mean, there is precedent to release those, but typically, the grand jury testimony is kept secret and classified information is not obviously released to the public?

CASTEN: Well, I think it depends on who your audience is. You know, Reagan famously talked about dealing with the Russians, you know, saying: trust but verify. Given how frequently this president lies, I think -- a reasonable person says, you've got to don't trust until you can verify. Are there reasons why there might be information in this report that shouldn't be released to the general public? Perhaps.

But are there reasons why the full report should not be released at a minimum to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees who can make decisions about what to release to the broader Congress and to the public? No. And frankly, going even beyond that, I'd like to see not only the report but all of the supporting materials behind the report from, you know, from the Benghazi investigations going back to the Whitewater investigation there's a pretty long history of the Justice Department turning over all their supporting materials.

Because what the Justice Department's mandate is to look for evidence of criminality. There's a difference between what's prosecutable and what's criminal as, you know, as I have far too much experience from in my, prior business world. But our task as a Congress, I think is even stricter as to say are there things that question whether there might be compromises and fitness for office question within the circle of people around the president. And we can't know that unless we've seen the full report and all the underlying documents.

BLACKWELL: I want you to listen to -- to that point, I want you to listen Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono and what she's says, and why specifically House Judiciary should get the unredacted report. Watch.


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D), HAWAII: The house committee is entitled to that information because it is a committee that any investigation into impeachment starts with the house.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: So, from your perspective, it would be OK to share some of this very sensitive information with the House Judiciary Committee on a very confidential basis, but could not be made public, is that right?

HIRONO: The House Judiciary Committee is entitled to a nonredacted version. They are entitled. I'm not saying that the Senate committee should get that, although, it would be good, you know, I'd like to see all that.

BLITZER: Why should the House Committee be entitled but not the Senate Committee?

HIRONO: Because anything relating to impeachment starts with the House. So, they need the full report.


[07:10:03] BLACKWELL: The impeachment again. And we've heard from Nancy Pelosi saying that impeachment, at least for now, is off the table. Do you agree that this should be given to the House Judiciary Committee for the interest of impeachment or considering impeachment?

CASTEN: I believe this should be given to the House Judiciary Committee, because our job is to act as a check and balance. We have obligations, because of the oath of office we take, and we have tools that are available to us up to and including impeachment. Whether or not we use those tools really depends on what we learn. I don't think that's ultimately the reason why the House needs to see the document, though. The House needs to see all of the documents because we have a whole scope of obligations.

I'm not on the Judiciary Committee, I'm on the financial services committee. We have some real questions there about how it is that someone who as the self-described king of debt went to running an all- cash operation and his son boasted about how much money was coming from the Russians. And if that's all you know about the individual, I think it's safe to say that someone who is in that type of financial situation if they were applying to be a junior FBI agent, would probably be considered compromised.

On the Financial Services Committee, I'd like to know what information came out of the report about that. Is that criminal? Maybe not. But it raises conflicts of interest. And I would like to understand, and again, this is not about impeachment. This is not even limited to the president, may not even include the president. But I would like to know as we think about people within the circle of the president who is compromised as they deal with foreign countries on the world stage, who is compromised as we question whether they're putting America's interests first.

And I hate that we have to have this conversation. I think the American people hate that we have to have this conversation. Because we don't want to go to bed at night wondering whether when the president takes a call with a foreign leader, that the president is acting in the best interest of the United States. But that's where we are right now. The way the sunlight remains the best disinfectant; and we just need to provide sunlight and truth so that the people can make an honest judgment. BLACKWELL: We've got two weeks according to the time line set by the

attorney general. Representative Sean Casten of Illinois, thank you so much.

CASTEN: Thank you.

PAUL: Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke officially launching his 2020 presidential bid today with three rallies in Texas. A live report for you from El Paso, where O'Rourke will make his case for opposing President Trump's border wall.

BLACKWELL: Plus, an expensive demand from the city of Chicago to actor Jussie Smollett. Repay $130,000 for investigating a crime that police say never happened.

PAUL: And we're talking to an immigrant rights advocate who challenged an officer when he tried to arrest two migrants.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those are not warrants of arrest, sir.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, warrant of arrest of alien not signed by a judge. It's not a judicial warrant. I have no obligation to abide by that warrant. That's not a warrant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a warrant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it's not. It's a Department of Homeland Security order.


[07:17:20] BLACKWELL: Well, as the Mueller report is prepared for release, the president, he first tweeted he has nothing to hide, but then followed up with what seemed like maybe a warning about the release. The president is at Mar-a-Lago this morning. And CNN's Boris Sanchez joins us live from West Palm Beach. Boris, good morning.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, good morning, Victor. Yes, the president was responding to demands from some Democrats including the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler demanding that the Attorney General Barr release the full Mueller report to Congress by April 2nd. That would be Tuesday. So, it's increasingly unlikely that the report would be ready in the eyes of Barr and others in time to get it to Congress by then. The president was asked about this process of redaction that the attorney general confirmed they're going through right now. Listen to what he said about trust in his attorney general.


TRUMP: I have great confidence in the attorney general. And if that's what he'd like to do, I have nothing to hide. This was a hoax. This was a witch hunt. I have absolutely nothing to hide. And I think a lot of things are coming out with respect to the other side.


SANCHEZ: Yes. Now, despite saying he has nothing to hide. He later tweeted this, clearly, responding to Democrats, he writes: "Robert Mueller was a hero to the radical left Democrats until he ruled that there was no collusion with Russia, so ridiculous to even say. After two years when an insurance policy statement was made by a dirty cop, I got the answer I wanted, the truth.

The problem is, no matter what the radical left Democrats get, no matter what we give them it will never be enough. Just watch, they will harass and complain and resist the theme of their movement. So, maybe we should just take our victory and say no, we've got a country to run." It's unclear if the president is suggesting he may claim executive privilege and try to keep some portions of the Mueller report a secret or redact some of them.

The Attorney General Barr has said that the president has the authority to do that. As for the material that Barr is currently going through to redact it basically falls into four buckets. First, it's information that by law that is private and can't be made public. Grand jury material. There's also information that would give up intelligence-gathering information such as sources or method. Then, there's also information that could pertain to still ongoing investigations.

And then, there's this, I'll read you a specific portion of the attorney general's letter to Congress. He says he's going to look the information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. It's not clear what reputational interests he's talking about or who those third parties are. Potentially, President Trump, we may never know for years, potential decades ahead, Victor and Christi.

BLACKWELL: All right. Boris Sanchez for us there at West Palm Beach, thanks so much.

PAUL: Well, Steve Rogers, a member of the Donald Trump Campaign Advisory Board is with us now. Good morning, how are you.


PAUL: Thank you so much. So, let's talk real quickly here about this situation with Mueller. The president has given some different opinions it seems on this. At one point, he said he has absolutely nothing to hide. I want to fast forward to his tweet in the last several hours where he said: "Mexico has, for many years -- I'm sorry, he said, the problem is no matter what the radical left Democrats get, no matter what we give them, it will never be enough. Just watch, they will harass and complain and resist -- the theme of their movement. So, maybe we should take our victory and say no, we've got a country to run." Is he planning some formal action to keep this report from release?

ROGERS: Well, you know, I've heard the critics overnight, and I would have hoped they have learned a lesson over their jumping the gun on the collusion issues. I believe what the president is saying when he uses the reference "no." Is that say no to the harassment. Say no to the hindering of his ability to move forward with the country. Let's start governing. So, as your reporter said earlier, look, no one know exactly what he meant. But I sense, from the people that I work with, that he actually is saying, hey, look, it's time to say no to all of the diversions and let's move on. I believe that he wants the report out. He said he has nothing to hide. And we're going to see that report with some redactions within the framework of the law.

[07:21:43] PAUL: OK. I want to move on here to immigration if I could, please. Because we have President Trump saying, of course, that he's going to shut down the border as early as next week, if Mexico doesn't stop the crossings that are going on. We just heard from the representative there, Steve -- Sean Casten, rather, saying that idea is dumb, it's tragic, and it's racist. What is your reaction to that?

ROGERS: Well, if that individual, and I heard that individual say those words spoke to the angel moms down there, the people whose relatives have been killed. And look, we're not saying all immigrants crossing that border are bad people. There are good people and there are some legitimate reasons why they're crossing that border.

But the influx, as you reported earlier, is so overwhelming now that law enforcement resources -- not by the hundreds but by the thousands are being diverted in order to protect that border. So, when you talk to the people who live down there, and the president has consistently talked about the safety of the officers and assets down there, he has to do something.

So, it's not dumb. It's something I know he doesn't want to do. No one wants to see this done. But in order to protect our country, to protect the people down there, the law enforcement officers down there, he has to take some pretty tough action and this is what he's to do, if he has to do it.

PAUL: Well, and he's also making the argument that economically it makes sense. Saying, besides we lose so much money with them -- meaning Mexico -- especially when add in drug trafficking, et cetera. This was in his tweet. He said that the border closing would be a good thing. Now, Christopher Wilson who is the Deputy Director of Wilson Centers Mexico Institute spoke with Newsweek, and said it would actually be an economic disaster.

Millions of Americans would be immediately and directly affected by this saying shutting this down from one day to the next would force many factories across the United States to stop their assembly lines within days, to cause produce to rot and generally throw the economies of both the United States and Mexico into turmoil. On what criteria is the president making that argument that it's economically sound?

ROGERS: Well, to begin with, I think that's an overreaction from that individual who's making such statements. I don't see thousands of people out of work and factories closing down. What the president has consistently said, and I have to agree on with this: the economic impact is just, kind of, on the opposite. I mean, the millions being spent on law enforcement across this country with regard to the ICE operations in each of our cities where there are a lot of illegal immigrants.

The courts are backed up, as you know, the surge is causing tremendous economic problems on this side of the border here in the United States. Maybe it's going to hurt Mexico a little bit, but I don't think we're going to have a severe impact there. So, I think the president is measuring what we are suffering now economically as compared to what may happen if that border is closed. And I don't think it will be too severe.

PAUL: All right. We've run out of time, I'm sorry to say, Steve Rogers. Thanks for taking the time.

ROGERS: Thank you for having me.

BLACKWELL: All right. Coming up, an immigrant rights advocate pushed back when an ICE officer tried to arrest two migrants from his car. We'll talk with him about it.


[07:29:04] BLACKWELL: A New York immigrant rights advocate prevented ICE officers from arresting two undocumented immigrants in his car. They pulled him over and showed him what they claim was arrest paperwork.

PAUL: He pushed back, citing the constitution, listen to this.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are, sir. Warrants of arrest (INAUDIBLE).

MACCORMACK: Yes, warrant of arrest of alien not signed by a judge. It's not a judicial warrant. I have no obligation to oblige by that warrant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a lawful warrant.

MACCORMACK: Signed by a judge?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- of the immigration and nationality act. An official designated with that authority.

MACCORMACK: That's not a warrant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is a warrant.

MACCORMACK: No, it's not. It's a Department of Homeland Security order.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a warrant.

MACCORMACK: OK. No, it's not a warrant. It's not a warrant under the constitution of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a warrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States.

MACCORMACK: OK. That's fine. But it's not under the constitution. You have no jurisdiction over me as a citizen. I'm a driver of the vehicle.

[07:30:05] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, are you familiar with Title 8 Section 1324 of the U.S. Code?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Somewhat. In what regard?

MACCORMACK: I'm studying to be a Department of Justice accredited representative. So, I've been through trainings.


MACCORMACK: And I have copies of the -- actually, in this box are here, I have a copy of a real warrant and a copy of that, just so people know not to listen to that.


PAUL: Joining us now, Bryan McCormack, executive director of Columbia County Sanctuary Movement. He is who you saw in that clip. Bryan, thank you for taking the time to be with us.

What was the reaction from the officer at the end of the day when you had gone through this whole spiel?

MACCORMACK: First of all, thank you for having me and shedding light on this important issue. I think the reaction of the officer, he was quite surprised because the normal tactics that ICE uses to violate the rights of our neighbors did not work here because I knew my rights as did the passengers of my vehicle.

BLACKWELL: So, the Washington Post reports that essentially, it wasn't the virtue of your argument. But it was the interference that urged these two ICE officers to pull back.

They say in a statement to The Post that ICE spokesman said, an individual interfered with the efforts of deportation officers who sought to get these two people out of your vehicle, that interference caused the officers to depart instead of further disruption. What's your reaction to that, but it was the interference that, that caused them to pull back not the virtue of your argument.

MACCORMACK: What I would say is that the only thing that was interfered with is the life of our community members. Of course, ICE has absolutely no regard for disrupting the lives of community members, of immigrants in our country. And I really do believe that it was the fact that they had no authority because we knew our rights. And because there was no judicial warrant. And that's why they left the scene.

PAUL: Bryan, how often does a situation like this happen?

MACCORMACK: You know, I'm not really sure, it's hard to tell. Unfortunately, we usually only hear about it when a video like this is recorded which is great. You know, recording is something that we teach all of our community members and are 'know your rights' trainings, but I do know that it has happened before and it's been done by both allies and the immigrants alike.

BLACKWELL: So, what is the training that you're going through that prepared you for this, and how can other people who are in this position had to know what their rights under the Constitution are?

MACCORMACK: I don't have any formal training for know your rights. Our organization facilitates trainings for community members and allies, it essentially gives you the knowledge of what your rights are in a given series of situations or scenarios. And so, I knew that I did not have to open the door to my vehicle nor to my house without a judicial warrant as mandated by the Constitution.

I think this is very important because we do have rights. And those rights have power, and exercising those rights could be the difference between our neighbors going home to their families at night or being thrust into the deportation pipeline.

PAUL: And why do you think those rights are not more prolific? Why are they not part of the conversations that are being had with people so they can protect themselves?

MACCORMACK: Yes, I really don't believe that there's enough know your rights education on a variety of issues in this country and I believe the more people who know their rights, the stronger our rights become collectively. All right. Bryan MacCormack, thanks for being with us this video that was posted is getting a strong reaction online and a response there, from ICE as well. Thanks so much for being with us on NEW DAY.

MACCORMACK: Thank you for having me.

BLACKWELL: So, a South Carolina community is outraged over the death of a 10-year-old girl. This was after a fight at school. I mean, kids get into fights but rarely ends up like this. There are a lot of questions but police are not saying much.


[07:38:30] BLACKWELL: A 10-year-old girl in South Carolina died two days after a fight broke out at school. Raniya White -- Wright, rather was only in the fifth grade. And her mom says she was a victim of bullying. PAUL: Now, officials aren't saying a lot but the parents they're loud and clear. They want answers, they want change, because parents are concerned about their kids. CNN's Kaylee Hartung has more.


KAYLEE HARTUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Parents in this small South Carolina town demanding answers from school officials.

TIM MABRY, CHAIRMAN, COLLETON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Due the ongoing investigation and the student privacy laws, we cannot share specific details at this time.

HARTUNG: After a fight between two fifth graders in a classroom turned deadly. Authorities have revealed few details. It's unclear what led to the fight at this elementary school, Monday. Who witnessed it or when school officials intervened? But when paramedics responded, they found 10-year-old Raniya Wright, unconscious in the nurse station.

The altercation classified as a simple assault by police sent Rania to a local Walterboro hospital. She was then airlifted to a hospital in Charleston, an hour away. Two days after the fight, she died.

School officials say, one student has been suspended, but it's unclear if that student was involved in the fight. Authorities have not filed any criminal charges.

Raniya's mother, Ashley Wright tells me, she believes her daughter was the victim of a bully at her school here in Walterboro. But that is not yet a determination that authorities have made. Ashley Wright tells me she's not yet ready to answer questions on camera or speak publicly. But her father, Raniya's grandfather tells me violence was not his granddaughter's way.

[07:40:05] ERNIE WRIGHT, GRANDFATHER OF RANIYA WRIGHT: My granddaughter, she was a good girl. First, violence or anything like that, she never would do that.

HARTUNG: The Wright family issued a statement Friday, demanding change. Change that "Addresses the reasons that a child would openly express anxiety about attending school. Change that addresses legitimate fears that a child has while in the school building. Change that addresses bullying and teasing and the collateral damage when those behaviors go unchecked." One school board member says it's not that easy.

WILLIAM BOWMAN, BOARD MEMBER, COLLETON COUNTY SCHOOL: We're going to have to look in the situation. Look at the situation and see if there any avenues that we could take in order to make our schools even safer.

HARTUNG: As Raniya's family plans her funeral, the Walterboro community plans to continue pushing authorities for answers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They are expecting us to let this go. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But when they messed up is, they got the wrong group of people.

HARTUNG: Kaylee Hartung, CNN, Walterboro, South Carolina.


PAUL: Yes, because a lot of people watch that and think we send our kids to school believing them they're going to come home. So, we will continue to stay on that story, of course for you.

Also, the guidelines from mammograms haven't really changed in the last 20 years. But they're about to. Why the FDA says, one small change can make a big difference in diagnosing breast cancer.


[07:45:29] PAUL: So, for the first time in two decades, the guidelines for breast cancer screening are changing. The FDA is proposing these changes as a way to help identify a woman's breast cancer risk may be a bit earlier. Jacqueline Howard, writer for CNN "HEALTH AND WELLNESS" is with us now. So, to talk us through, Jacqueline, these new guidelines.

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN WRITER, HEALTH AND WELLNESS: Right. So, these new guidelines basically center around better detecting breast cancer in women with the dense breasts. So, more than half of women over the age of 40 have dense breasts. And the FDA is now proposing for medical facilities where mammograms are performed to inform women of their breast density. Because that can play a role in your mammogram screening, and that can play a role in your overall cancer risk.

PAUL: OK. So, we just got the answer to what was my next question is, how do you know if you have dense breasts? But if you do, how does that change things for you?

HOWARD: So, breast density basically refers to the amount of dense tissues in your breast, and that's relative to fatty tissues. So sometimes, dense tissues can obscure signs of cancer in your mammogram and that's why it's important for you to be knowledgeable of what your breast density looks like.

PAUL: So, if you go in for a mammogram, and you do have dense breasts, do you then have to or should you expect to have further testing? Should they do something that's a little more intense?

HOWARD: You know, sometimes for women with dense breasts, your doctor might recommend additional testing. And if you're concerned about the cost of additional testing, many states require for insurance to cover additional tests for women with dense breasts. So, that might come up.

But, overall with these new FDA proposals, this is the perfect time to talk to your doctor about your breast density and what that means for your breast health.

PAUL: OK, but just for clarity purposes, this is something that is or is not generally, since these are new guidelines going to be covered by insurance. Because that might determine for women how invasive they may be willing to go.

HOWARD: Exactly, and it's really a state-by-state situation right now. So, that's why you know, for you, it's important to look at what options are available for you, and what that might mean as you continue breast cancer screening.

Now, it is important to note that even though these new guidelines are being proposed, this does not change the current recommendations for breast cancer screenings. So, the American Cancer Society still recommends for women aged 45 to 54 to screen every year.

If you're older than 54, you can start screening every other year. If you're younger than 45, you have the option to screen early. And that might be due to high risk if you have a family history or other factors. So, talk to your doctor about that.

But overall, those recommendations are the same. What's new is that the FDA is proposing for you to have that information about your breast density. And to really be aware of what that means for your health.

PAUL: And can you only determine that through a mammogram?

HOWARD: Exactly. So --


PAUL: You know, you can't go to your regular doctor and say, "Do I need to take this -- you know, secondary precaution?" You need to go for a mammogram to determine whether you do.

HOWARD: Exactly. And the FDA is saying that that's seen in your screening and that's what you should be informed about.

PAUL: All right, got it. Jacqueline Howard, thank you for walking us through it.

HOWARD: Thank you.

PAUL: Appreciate it. Victor?

BLACKWELL: Jussie Smollett is back in Los Angeles. But Chicago wants him to pay up. More than 130,000 dollars. Plus, conflicting statements now coming in from the top prosecutor whose office dropped the charges against Smollett. Could prosecutors have won if the case had gone to court?


[07:53:27] PAUL: So that you know this, different political views. They can cause stress in your relationships. Your family, your friendships, I've seen people deep friended, unfriended on Facebook.

So, in this week's "STAYING WELL", we're going to see how to find a healthy medium in our relationships.


JEANNE SAFER, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: You do not have to tolerate something that's going to be divisive and make everybody miserable.

I'm Jeanne Safer, and I'm a psychoanalyst.

RICK BROOKHISER, SENIOR EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: I'm Rick Brookhiser. I'm a senior editor of National Review.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How long you be been married?

BROOKHISER: 39 years in September.

I'm a conservative Republican. She's a liberal Democrat. You know, we used to fight a little bit. And then, over time, we learned just not to do that. It didn't result in me or Jeanne changing either one of our minds.

SAFER: As a therapist, the issue is not politics, it's psychology.

I interviewed 50 people for this book. I would say about 48 of them were busy trying to stick their opinions down the other person's throat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I find complete love.

SAFER: If you want your marriage to be better or your friendship or your relationship with your child, I hereby give everybody permission to say, let's not talk about this and stick with it. You don't have to agree with his positions.

It makes a relationship closer. It also says, I know the place of politics, and I know the place of personality and character. And I choose character over anything.

[07:55:05] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got the right key.


BLACKWELL: While facing a mounting criticism over the dropped charges of Empire star Jussie Smollett, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, to wrote an op-ed where she said, she welcomes an independent non- political review of the case.

PAUL: To some of her comments suggest prosecutors wouldn't have prevailed in court. Here's what she writes. "In determining whether to pursue charges, prosecutors are required to balance the severity of the crime against the likelihood of securing a conviction. For a variety of reasons including public statements made about the evidence, in this case, my office believed the likelihood of securing a conviction was not certain." BLACKWELL: And outgoing Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, well, he made good on his promise to bill Smollett for the cost of the investigation. The city sent Smollett an invoice for a little more than $130,000 and that's due in five days.

PAUL: So, CNN's Nick Watt is in Chicago. Kim Foxx's op-ed, I mean, it got appears to contradict or her earlier statements about whether her office would have won a conviction. What do you make of this?

NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. But listen, it's also important to note that in that op-ed, she made it very clear that Jussie Smollett was not exonerated. She said in her words that he was not found innocent of these charges of making a false police report of orchestrating this hoax in which he was attacked.

But listen, this has become a huge political hot potato here in Chicago and nationwide. I mean, listen, President Trump has been tweeting that this is an absolute embarrassment to the country.

Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago has been saying that this is a whitewash of justice. And you know, he came out with Eddie Johnson, the superintendent of police here in Chicago. He came out this week and said, you know, "We want money back from Jussie Smollett. And they have now sent him a letter asking for $130,000 as restitution for all the time that two dozen officers, they claim over weeks spent investigating this case.

So, listen, this is far from over. And I think that perhaps, what has given this story more legs was Jussie Smollett himself coming out after those charges were dropped basically proclaiming his innocence.

He never said, "I did not do it," but he said, "I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of what I'm being accused of." But it's also interesting to note that when those charges were dropped, Kim Fox's assistant who made the statement, he said that -- listen, if Jussie Smollett had not agreed to forfeit his bond, he gave $10,000 to the city, and if he had not conducted community service, then these charges would not have been dropped.

So, there is a lot of gray area somewhere behind the scenes. And Kim Foxx, herself has said, listen, "I am happy to be investigated. I would like an independent investigation of this."

So, proclaiming that she doesn't think that there's anything to hide, that she has done nothing wrong. But this is such a political issue now. So many people are involved that it's difficult to know exactly where it's going to go from here, but it will keep on going. Back to you guys.

BLACKWELL: All right, so there's a lot to sort out in Chicago. Smollett is now in Los Angeles. Ad there are some who will watch the NAACP Image Awards tonight. Wondering if he will be there. He's nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his work on Empire.

WATT: He is, Victor. And we know that he went to Los Angeles this week. We saw him arriving at LAX Airport on Wednesday night. Now, his award Best Supporting Actor in a drama was given out last night in a ceremony that was streamed on Facebook. Take a look at what happened.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jussie Smollett, Romany Malco, Wendell Pierce.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the winner is, Jesse Williams, Grey's Anatomy.


WATT: So, now we wait to find out if Jussie Smollett will actually show up at the main televised event tonight. Reportedly, he was not at that event last night. The camera didn't cut too the nominees as it often does. So, we can all be sure. But reportedly, he was not there. Also, still unclear whether Jussie Smollett will ever get back onto the show, Empire.

Since the charges were dropped, all we've heard from 20th Century Fox is that they are gratified that the charges have been dismissed. No further comment yet from them. Guys.

BLACKWELL: All right. Nick Watt, for us there in Chicago. Nick, thank you.