Return to Transcripts main page


House Democrats Are Making Moves To See The Full Report With Nothing Blacked Out As Well As All The Underlying Evidence; President Donald Trump Lashed Out Again At Enemies; Don McGahn, The Former White House Counsel, Helped Save Donald Trump's Presidency By Refusing To Fire The Special Counsel. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 20, 2019 - 16:00   ET



[16:00:00] JEANNIE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And in a blink, someone added a soundtrack.

Jeannie Moos, CNN, New York.


ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thank you for spending time this holiday weekend with me.

President Trump is not unplugging today as many people do on a holiday weekend. He is keeping his foot on the gas after the Mueller report release sending out a barrage of tweets even before the sun came up. Lashing out again at enemies he sees in Congress, Democrats he calls Trump haters, and even changing his tune again about the man who wrote the report, Robert Mueller.

The President used to call Mueller conflicted and worst names, he changed that to honorable earlier this year. Well now, apparently, it's back to conflicted. Trump also repeated his victory cry not once, but three times this morning, no collusion.

CNN's Boris Sanchez is South Florida, not far from the President's Mar-a-Lago resort where he is spending this Easter weekend.

And Boris, some of those people the President calls his enemies, House Democrats, they are making moves to see the full report with nothing blacked out as well as all the underlying evidence. They are issuing a deadline.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Ana. That deadline is May 1st. And it comes from a subpoena filed by the House judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler. He is asking for the full un- redacted Mueller report even with portions containing grand jury material that was redacted. As you said, Democrats want to see the underlying evidence here. They do not trust the department of justice under attorney general William Barr.

The DOJ fired back in a statement. The writing quote "in the interest of transparency, the attorney general released the special counsel's confidential a report with only minimal redactions. The department of justice has also made arrangements for chairman Nadler and other congressional leaders to review the review with even fewer redactions. In light of this, congressman Nadler's subpoena is premature and unnecessary. The department will continue to work with Congress to accommodate its legitimate requests, consistent with the law and long recognized executive branch interest."

This is a fight, Ana, that almost will certainly wind up in court.

CABRERA: All right. Boris Sanchez, in West Palm Beach, Florida. Thank you.

Despite Mueller's conclusion of no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign in Russia, his report does expose key omissions and outright lies by the President on several topics, including the idea that he didn't have any business dealings with Russia. Remember when the President said this?


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals in Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we have stayed away.


CABRERA: Only he didn't stay away. He signed a letter of intent in 2015 for a Trump tower in Moscow. And remember this very famous line about Hillary Clinton's missing emails?


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


CABRERA: Trump told the special counsel in his written responses, I made the statement in jest and sarcastically as was apparent to any objective observer, only it turns out members of Trump's campaign including Michael Flynn repeatedly sought to acquire Clinton's emails at Trump's direction. And in fact within five hours of that statement we just played, Russians tried to hack Clinton's office by sending malicious links to various email accounts.

And remember that story about the infamous Trump tower with a Russian lawyer? Well, Mueller writes that the President dictated a statement about the meeting to be issued by Donald Trump Jr. describing the meeting as about adoption. The President's lawyers and the White House first tried to say the President had nothing to do with that statement, not true. And we know the premise of the meeting wasn't about adoption, it was about getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. And remember what the President said about firing FBI director James Comey?


TRUMP: Regardless of recommendations I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It is an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that this should have won.


CABRERA: According to Mueller, he left on the fact that he initially tried to get the deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein to take the fall for Comey's firing.

Quote "that night the White House press office called the department of justice and said the White House wanted to put out a statement saying that it was Rosenstein's idea to fire Comey. Rosenstein told other DOJ officials that he would not participate in putting out a false story."

Perhaps all these lies explain why when then attorney general Jeff Sessions told the President a special counsel had been appointed, the President slumped bulk in his chair and said, oh, my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm F'd.

Joining me now, CNN political correspondent Sara Murray, White House correspondent for "the Guardian" Sabrina Siddiqui and presidential historian and former director of the Nixon presidential library Timothy Naftali.

Sara, the report doesn't prove the President committed a crime, but it does prove the President is constantly lying and that he expects his aides to lie for him as well.

[16:05:38] SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: That's right, Ana. I mean, President Trump is awfully luck that lying to the American public is not a crime, because we can see sort of painstakingly detailed in this report not just all the times that he was spreading falsehoods, but all the times he wanted people around him to lie in his behalf, too.

I mean, this instance you laid out with Rod Rosenstein was one example. But you know, also this conversation he had with Don McGahn where he wanted him essentially to make sure that Bob Mueller was no longer special counsel. The President insisted that conversation never happened. He wanted Don McGahn, the White House counsel the time to go out and refute it. And McGahn refuse to do so because he said this is a conversation that actually happened. I'm not going to go out there and put out a statement that is a lie. And I think we see, you know, instances like that detailed over and over again. I mean, the President just sort of spouting on falsehoods that I guess he thought we would never see the clear answer to, but over and over again, Ana, he gets caught in these lies. And it is really remarkable to sort of read them in order in this report.

CABRERA: Tim, I talked to a number of Trump supporters who simply brushed off the President's misstatements, falsehoods, lies, saying all presidents lie. Is this different?

TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, it is like saying all people - there are people who make - who commit crimes. And if you commit a crime, that's OK because other people commit a crime before. So that argument is a terribly cynical argument and we never want to make that arguments about Presidents because we don't want our current president to be lying.

There are things -- as someone who ran a presidential library, I'm particularly sensitive to evidence that people -- that Presidents want to create false reports. There are four instances in the Mueller report in volume two where President Trump ordered somebody to create a false document in order to mislead eventually the American people about what actually happened. That shows an ability to deceive and a conniving nature that is inconsistent with the take-charge portion of his responsibilities of his oath to the American people and to the constitution.

This is really damaging and it's also troubling. I'm surprised that more people around him haven't resigned. It's clear from volume two that this is a man who expects you to lie for him, to dishonor yourself. Now, a number of them said no. KT McFarland said no.

CABRERA: Right. And maybe they didn't push back directly to his face in some of these cases, but to your point, it looks like, Sabrina, that those around the President may have saved him from actually obstructing justice, by not following his orders. From former White House council Don McGahn to former AG Jeff Sessions to former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to former White House aide Rob Porter, I mean, the list goes on and on. I know Sara touched on this.

But we did hear from a senior administration official who told our Jake Tapper quote "that the President makes absurd demands of his staff and administration officials who are alarmed by them and reluctant to follow them, is not only unsurprising, but has become the norm." Again, the people we listed are no longer in the White House.

Sabrina, do you get the sense that there are current staffers simply disregarding certain orders from the President?

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, POLITICS REPORTER, THE GUARDIAN: Well, absolutely, that's not a trend that is unique to the Russia investigation, CNN's Jake Tapper reported in just over a week ago that the President ordered one of his immigration officials to violate immigration law and that individual refused. The President had even suggested joked or suggest -- we don't know if it was a joke -- that he what pardon that individual.

So you know, this is just the way he operates where he thinks that he has unprecedented powers which he doesn't. And often times, the people around him have to reign in his impulses. But you know, when it comes to the Russian investigation, what the Mueller report really lays bare is the number of times in which the President did in fact seek to obstruct justice. Now he failed to do so on several occasions, because you pointed out there were staffers at the White House or others individuals within the administration who refused to follow through on those orders. And the reason that distinction is important is because that's the debate that is going to take shape on Capitol Hill where you already have some, not all Republican, coming out and saying, well, the President didn't actually obstruct justice. And we are not going to charge him with attempting to do something even if we think it may in fact be wrong, whereas Democrats believe that there are no shortage of crimes that are attempted crimes and that doesn't mean that they don't still constitute some kind of criminal wrongdoing.

It's, of course, worth pointing out that in a Republican-led Senate there won't be votes to actually convict the President even if House Democrats move to impeach him. But this really is the conversation that is going to take place in the coming weeks and months, especially as Democrats seek to subpoena the full report and all of the underlying evidence.

[16:10:21] CABRERA: And so I think it's really important for our viewers to have perspective and context as this continues to play out. I want everyone to listen to what former Nixon White House counsel John Dean had to say after reading this report.


JOHN DEAN, NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: What I did is looked in my shelf for the Watergate committee report. I looked at the Iran contra report. I also look at the Ken Starr report, which is too big to bring to the set here. It is four volumes, over 2,000 words. And I have to tell you, I have read all of those. And in 400 on words -- this report from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a President. This is really a devastating report.


CABRERA: Tim, do you agree?

NAFTALI: Well, I --

CABRERA: More than any of those?

NAFTALI: No, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Dean about Watergate. I think the Watergate, the number of crimes that President Nixon committed and those around him committed have just much larger than at least what we have evidence of at the moment. But in terms of a pattern of conduct that suggested dishonorable president, this particular Mueller report puts President Trump in the same family of misdeeds as those that we associate with some around Ronald Reagan and with Richard Nixon.

There's no doubt in the summer of 1974, Republicans and some of the Democrats who voted against what their constituents wanted were upset that Richard Nixon had shown a pattern of dishonorable conduct. Volume two of the Mueller report shows us yet again we have a President who is capable of a pattern of dishonest conduct.

What happens, we don't know. But there are similarities of history. There are no question that there are certain parallels to 1974. CABRERA: Democrats now are ramping up their oversight. They have

subpoenaed the un-redacted Mueller report and all the underlying evidence.

But Sara, the DOJ calls this request premature and unnecessary. It sounds like a fight is brewing.

MURRAY: That's right. I do think a fight is brewing. And look, democrats are looking for the full report. They are looking for the underlying evidence. DOJ is saying this is premature because they have already said that we will go back to Congress and we will give you guys, you know, some version of this report that has even fewer redactions.

That is not going to be enough to please the Democrats. They are in a tough position though because as Tim is pointing out, you know, he is talking about some of the difference between Watergate and where we are now, you know, when we were dealing with Nixon with Watergate and we had tapes, you know. We knew what Nixon was thinking contemporaneously at the time. We knew that his goal was to obstruct justice. And we knew what was going through his head as he was making these moves and sort of taking part in this crimes.

When you are dealing with what we have right now, we don't have that same kind of, you know, way to get in President Trump's head. There are no sort of tapes of what he was saying at the time and there was no interview between the special counsel and the president. There is just sort of this list of questions that were, you know, the President answered in writing that even the special counsel's office admits were inadequate.

CABRERA: Sabrina, the Mueller investigation has always been a cloud over this White House since the beginning of Trump's presidency. And in the report you really see just how obsessed the President was with this investigation, how paranoid he was about it. The investigation now is complete. For the past two years he is obsessed. Does that all change now?

SIDDIQUI: Well, I wouldn't say that it's necessarily going to change, in that this only just the beginning in many ways. Yes, we do have a redacted version of the report. But as you were just pointing out, Democrats are subpoenaing the full report. There is going to be a protracted legal battle over their efforts to get that report and all of the underlying evidence. And they are also pursuing with their newfound majority in the House, multiple other investigations involving the President. And some of those are follow-on threats that stem from this Russia inquiry. And others have to do with the hush money payments to women who alleged to having an affair with the President. You know, a lot of allegations that the President's former attorney Michael Cohen made in his recent testimony in Capitol Hill implicating the President in wrongdoing with respect to his organization and his charity, possible bank fraud and tax fraud.

So I think that in many ways the President's legal perils are far from over. And in addition to what Democrats on Capitol Hill are going to pursue, which may be frayed as political, even if they may believe that they have many reasons to pursue their oversight rule in Congress, there are also federal investigators in the southern district of New York, for example, that are looking into these very issues.

So I think in many ways, this cloud with respect to the Russia investigation may have been lifted for now. But again, the President is going to face a lot more legal questions for the remainder of time in his office and potentially a second term if he is reelected.

[16:15:10] CABRERA: All right. We will discuss the legal fallout in our next block.

Thank you, Sabrina Siddiqui, Sara Murray and Timothy Naftali. I appreciate it, guys.

His name was mentioned hundreds of time in the Mueller report. Did Don McGahn's defiance against Trump actually save his presidency? We will discuss next.


[16:19:35] CABRERA: In the wake of the Mueller report, some people believe it's now apparent Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, helped save Donald Trump's presidency by refusing to fire the special counsel, but the President is now lashing out at McGahn over details revealed in the Mueller report namely the part about McGahn taking notes of their conversations.

CNN's Tom Foreman explains.


TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Total B.S., as the President rages against the Mueller report, he appears to be singling out one particular person who spoke to investigators, former White House counsel Don McGahn. Watch out for people to take so-called notes, Trump tweeted, when the notes never existed until needed.

[16:20:09] DON MCGAHN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Thank you very much.

FOREMAN: Watch out for people that takes so-called notes, Trump tweeted, when the notes never existed until needed.

MCGAHN: It's been a privilege to be part of a presidential campaign that was successful.

FOREMAN: It is a big turnaround considering McGahn's role during the Russia robe. It was McGahn who refused to fire special counsel when Trump said Mueller has to go. McGahn who refused to lie about it later.

The Mueller report indicates both actions protected Trump from obstruction charges. But Jack O'Donnell, a former executive in the Trump organization says Trump's anger is typical. JACK O'DONNELL, AUTHOR, TRUMPED: In this case where Don McGahn really

saved him, it's not relevant, because the bigger picture makes Donald look bad.

MCGAHN: I don't have a list of enumerated powers I can look to when I advise the President. I want a can and can't do. It's more general.

FOREMAN: The Mueller report suggests Trump was always suspicious of McGahn's potential power.

Why do you take notes? Trump reportedly said in meeting. Lawyers don't take notes.

When McGahn said he was a real lawyer, Trump shot back. I have had a lot of great lawyers like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes. Cohn served Senator Joe McCarthy during his infamous campaign to reroute communists and he work for Trump in the 1970s when Trump's company was accused of discriminating against African-Americans. Cohn had to settle in that legal battle and he eventually lost his license for unethical conduct. Still, the poor McGahn left the White House last fall, Trump said he would not be a rat.


TRUMP: He's done an excellent job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any concerned about what he said to the Mueller team?

TRUMP: No. Not at all.

Perhaps, the President had reason to think that. After all when he was trying to get his casinos up and running years ago, battling politicians, regulators and more, who helped manage every detail, no matter how small? Don McGahn's uncle, Pat.

O'Donnell: Because literally Donald could ask Pat McGahn to do anything and he would do it for him. Obviously, Don McGahn had his limits with Donald Trump.

FOREMAN: So Trump fans are facing something of a puzzle right now, what should they think of Don McGahn? Sure, the President is putting him down, but he is also the very man who appears to have saved the Trump presidency.

Tome Foreman, CNN, Washington.


CABRERA: Joining us now, Rick Filkins, he was counsel to the Republicans in a House judiciary committee during Bill Clinton's impeachment and impeachment attorney Ross Garber. Ross is also a CNN Analyst.

Let me start with you Ross. Do you think the President would be indicted for obstruction if he weren't the sitting President of the United States?

ROSS GARBER, IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Hard to say. I mean, to build an obstruction case, you know, you need the obstructive act, you need a nexus to proceedings and you need corrupt intent. And so, it's hard to take this situation outside of the White House.

So, you know, I can't say. You know, I have heard the argument that one of the reason the President wasn't indicted here is because there wasn't an underlying crime or in other words, one of the reasons the President couldn't be charged with the crime is because there wasn't an underlying crime, something underlying the obstruction, a conspiracy with respect to Russia.


GARBER: That's an argument that generally doesn't hold water with respect to everyday people.

CABRERA: I mean, I did talk to another former federal attorney who said it would have been a slam dunk essentially to indict or at least charge somebody with the crime of obstruction if he weren't a sitting President. So I'm curious to get your take as well, Rick.

RICK FILKINS, COUNSEL TO GOP DURING CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: No way. No, I completely disagree with that Analysis. There's no obstruction of justice here. And Robert Mueller didn't find obstruction. He had his hamlet moment where he said it was an obstruction, he is an obstructionist or not obstruction (ph). And in the end he couldn't make a prosecutorial judgment that there was obstruction. Believe me, if he could have found obstruction, if he could made a case for obstruction, he would have done that, but he didn't do it.

CABRERA: Let me hold you there. Let me hold you there for a second because when you read this report, it looks like Mueller approached the obstruction investigation, at least when I read it and I read the quote here too, that he wasn't planning to ever charge the President because of the office of legal counsel guidelines that you can't indict a sitting President.

So he wrote, we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The office of legal counsel has issued an opinion finite the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branches to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separate of powers.

[16:25:04] FILKINS: That's exactly right. However, what he could have done is made an impeachment referral to the House judiciary committee. He could have done what Ken Starr did. Ken Starr made a referral, wherein he said Bill Clinton committed perjury. OK?

In this case Robert Mueller found beyond any doubt that there was no collusion, OK. So the first part of his investigation, nothing, zero, OK?

CABRERA: Right. FILKINS: So you have no underlying --.

CABRERA: But he also says in this case, there was no exoneration when it comes to the obstruction piece.

Let me also ask you about something else that Mueller writes in his report that the President quote "does not have immunity after he leaves office and that his team conducted a thorough, factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Ross, does Mueller tee up a possible prosecution of Trump after he leaves office here?

GARBER: So I think my fellow panelist just probably going to disagree with me here. But I think what, you know, when I read the Mueller report, what he was trying to do is preserve two things.

Number one is if this situation did go to Congress, to give it to Congress and allow Congress to evaluate it for potential impeachment, but second is - and it goes to the pass you just read is even if the President is immune from prosecution while in office, which is current DOJ policy, I think what Mueller is saying there is he wanted to preserve information and evidence in case in the future after the President leaves office, he could potentially be subject to prosecution there.

And what's interesting there is I think that's why the attorney general Barr, he reviewed the report, reviewed the information, and he came to his own decision about obstruction of justice. In other words, to sort of head off that possibility that in the future -- I don't see a prosecutor now going back on what the attorney general said about --

FILKINS: Ross, I don't disagree with you. There's not going to be, in my opinion, there's not going to be an impeachment, because these are trivial allegations of obstruction. These are allegations that Robert Mueller could not say amounted to obstruction of justice.

He is not going to be prosecuted when he leaves office, either. This is going to be dragged out by the House Judiciary Committee, because they want to keep this in the public eye. They want to keep the hysteria going, the media hysteria. They want to keep - they want everybody in their base to think that they are doing something against Trump, OK? Because let's face it, a lot of people hate Trump. So they want to keep it going.

And you know what they are going to do? They are going to run up to the election and they are going to absolutely just shut it down. There's not going to be an impeachment because impeachment would be dicey. They would lose because they don't have the votes to convict.


FILKINS: Republicans are not going to vote.

CABRERA: Impeachment is very much a political process.

Ross, do you think that Mueller wanted Congress to go through the impeachment proceedings given he does mention Congress having the power to check the President's abuse of power of that is what it is?

GARBER: Yes. When I read the report and unlike with Ken Starr and the independent counsel act, there's no mechanism for Robert Mueller to get this report to Congress. But when I read the report, I think Congress was an audience that he hoped to have or expected to have. And now that the attorney general has now given it to Congress, he has given it to the American people, with the expectation that Congress will evaluate it.

Now I agree with Rick, that to me it's unlikely that Congress is going to take action for some of the reasons that Rick said. I think in a way House Democratic leadership was surprised probably to get so much information about the obstruction issues. But impeachment is very hard. It is very difficult. I think it's not something that Democratic leadership probably wants to be talking about heading into 2020. They want to talk about --.

CABRERA: Would it be beneficial because Democrats, who aren't at this point saying we are ready to move toward impeachments including Nancy Pelosi and her number two, Sonny Hoyer (ph), they are saying we are not talking impeachment right now, but pretty much a united front when they are saying we want to hear from Robert Mueller directly.

FILKINS: That's fine.

CABRERA: Rick, do you think that's beneficial?

FILKINS: That's fine. And AG Barr is on record in saying, hey, he doesn't have a problem with Robert Mueller coming up and testifies. I think it is a great idea. He comes in and he testifies and he says this is why we did what we did and why we didn't do what we didn't do, and guess what? That's the end of it when Robert Mueller comes up and testifies.

CABRERA: All right.

GARBER: I think probably not.

CABRERA: I have got to end it there. Got to be the end of the segment, guys. I apologize. Thank you so much. Good to have both of your perspectives on this.

[16:30:00] FILKINS: Hey, thank you for having me.

CABRERA: We appreciate your time for sure. Coming up, a militia group detaining migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, we are talking hundreds of people just this week. Again, this is a militia group. Not the Federal government, not Border Patrol. The ACLU is now calling this kidnapping. We'll get a live report, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CABRERA: Now to a shocking border story, sparking plenty of outrage.

Armed members of an American militia group detaining nearly 300 undocumented immigrants this week in the southeast corner of New Mexico. The ACLU is putting this bluntly, calling it kidnapping.

[14:35:01] CABRERA: Here is a video posted online by an American militia group called United Constitutional Patriots. And you can see the armed men, wearing masks, dressed in military fatigues -- and I want to be clear, CNN has not authenticated this video or confirmed the date it was recorded, but let me bring in my colleague, CNN's Nick Valencia who has been digging on what has happened here, what do you know about this militia group and how they're comparing their actions to making a citizen's arrest.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ana, this group calls itself the United Constitutional Patriots and they are a self-described militia group. A group of concerned American citizens they say that are helping secure the border, and as you mentioned, they believe their actions are lawful and they have compared what they're doing to making a citizen's arrest. But in videos that we're about to show you, not only does one of the members falsely identify themselves as being a Border Patrol agent, he also starts to act like one, too.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: U.S. Border Patrol, what are you doing?

VALENCIA (voice over): The man speaking in the video is not a Border Patrol agent, but he appears to be acting like one. Here his gives commands to the migrant group, some of them children, which he has just intercepted.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walk you up, there you go.


VALENCIA (voice over): The clips were posted to the Facebook of Jim Benvie, a member of the United Constitutional Patriots, a militia group based along the New Mexico border.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't work well with Border Patrol, by the way, just so you guys know that. That's the media.


VALENCIA (voice over): They describe themselves as concerned citizens, helping to keep America safe, plugging the holes, they say, for the U.S. Border Patrol.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That Border Patrol is tied up, so if we weren't here right now, they could be bringing in busloads, droppings them over here and running up the hill.


VALENCIA (voice over): The group's actions have drawn swift condemnation from the American Civil Liberties Union and others who have equated the group's actions to kidnapping.


PETER SIMONSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACLU OF NEW MEXICO: This is exactly why we don't let private citizens enforce the laws of our country. This is an act of vigilantism, and we need Federal, local and state authorities stepping in as quickly as possible.


VALENCIA (voice over): They've asked Federal, state and local law enforcement to investigate. In a statement to CNN, a spokesman for the New Mexico Governor's Office said this about the militia group. "They have absolutely not been authorized by our office or any other. We are actively working with the Attorney General's Office, state police and local police to determine what has gone on and what can and will be done. That migrant families might be menaced or threatened in any way, shape or form is completely unacceptable."

CNN has been unable to independently verify when and where the clips were shot. We made several attempts to reach the United Constitutional Patriots and Jim Benvie. They did not reply.

A spokesman for the group defended their actions to the "New York Times" saying what they do is legal. But in one of the nighttime videos posted by the group, a man can be heard alluding to another tactic he wishes the militia could use.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The only problem is if we shoot on the hill, it will be an international crisis. We're too close to the border. It would save some time, though, wouldn't it?


VALENCIA: They declined specifically to comment about this group, but they did send this statement, "The agency does not endorse or condone private groups or organizations taking enforcement measures into their own hands." It goes on to say, "Interference by civilians in law enforcement matters could have public safety and legal consequences for all parties involved."

And Ana, if you are wondering, yes, it is a felony to impersonate a Federal officer, you heard it very clearly in that video that we just showed and we understand a multiple -- a myriad, I should say of agencies are investigating this -- Ana.

CABRERA: Wow, that video really gives you an idea of what's going on there. Thank you very much for that reporting, Nick. Coming up, a Kansas zoo worker rushed to the hospital after a tiger attack. What we are learning about these frightening moments, next.


[14:42:52] CABRERA: Medical examiners in South Carolina have now determined a fifth-grade girl who passed away after a fight at school died of natural causes. According to the County Coroner, ten-year- old, Raniya Wright died when a blood vessel ruptured in her brain, the result of a birth defect. Doctors say that birth defect caused headaches for months before her death and that she received treatment for those headaches at least six times over the past two years. Prosecutors say the fight in no way contributed to Wright's death and no charges will be filed.

Some serious questions being asked today about how the Topeka Kansas Zoo handles its tigers. This after a seven-year-old male named Sanjiv attacked a zoo keeper sending her to the hospital with punctures to her back, to the back of her head, her neck, her arm, and now, she is in stable condition fortunately. It's still not clear why the worker and that animal were in the same space at the same time.

The zoo says it is investigating, but it appears the rare Sumatran tiger was not at fault and won't be euthanized. Here's the zoo's director.


BRENDAN WILEY, TOPEKA ZOO DIRECTOR: While this incident is very unfortunate, he did what a wild animal, what a wild tiger does. Both our team member and Sanjiv, the tiger were both in our outdoor tiger habitat. As soon as Sanjiv recognized that, he essential tackled our keeper.


CABRERA: Ron Magill joins us now. He is a wild life expert and the Communications Director at Zoo Miami. Ron, is the Topeka Zoo right? Sanjiv just did what wild tigers do and should not be euthanized?

RON MAGILL, WILD LIFE EXPERT AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, ZOO MIAMI. That's absolutely correct. I mean, there's no question here as to why this happened. They were both in the same enclosure at the same time. The question is why were they both in the same enclosure?

Topeka Zoo is an excellent zoo and accredited facility and I can tell you, there is no accredited facility that has a policy that would allow to have free contact with a tiger. So the investigation has to go on now. That's the question -- I wasn't there. Until the investigation is concluded, the bottom line is there was human error, there was equipment error. There was some kind of communication error, but I can pretty much assure you, it is not a policy of any accredited zoo to allow a keeper to be in the same enclosure or the same area as a tiger.

[14:45:10] CABRERA: And the zoo says that zoo keeper has been working with their tigers for years, so you would assume she knows the policy and yet she was in the same space alone with this large adult male tiger. What is typical protocol in terms of caring for these wild and dangerous animals?

MAGILL: Well, in these large enclosures, the typical protocol is you have the animal secured and then the keepers can go out into the enclosure and service the enclosure, whether they are cleaning enclosure, cleaning the pools or whatever, but the animal is secured.

Obviously, there was a breakdown in communication there. There was some mistake made and that's what the investigation is going to do. I can tell you from personal experience, Ana, it was about 11, 12 years ago that we had a keeper killed at our zoo, and at the end of the day, it turned out to be human error. He walked out in the exhibit and I am very happy to hear that this young lady is in stable condition. She's extremely fortunate.

But at the end of the day also, the director is correct. This is not the tiger's fault at all. This was an error made in some way and the investigation is the only thing that is going to determine what that error was.

CABRERA: The zoo shut down for about 45 minutes after this attack, removed the tigers from public view for the rest of the day. Do you think that's enough?

MAGILL: Again, I'm not there. I don't know about the investigative techniques. You know, in our situation, I could tell you the zoo was closed for the entire day. We had police come in and investigate. We had all kinds of safety investigations, OSHA -- a lot of people had to investigate the situation.

Having not been there at Toledo in Topeka, I can't tell you exactly what they need there, so I can't really make a comment on that.

CABRERA: You already said, this could have been so much worse. The zoo keeper does have puncture wounds and lacerations. The zoo, we're hearing, says she was tackled. It sounds like you have had some experience before of this sort of thing happening with these type of animals.

MAGILL: Unfortunately, I have and he was a dear friend of mine. No one will ever know why he was in there. We couldn't figure it out. At the end of the day, the conclusion was made that he made an error. He stepped into that enclosure, but let me tell you what happens sometimes. You now, we go through things every day and we think we've done something and maybe something we did the day before, and you've got your mind somewhere else. It's just a reminder that this job, working with these animals is a dangerous job. We have to always be on point.

One tiny mistake can result in a horrible situation like this because that's the only thing we can conclude is that, he may have thought he locked up the animal. He said -- but it was the day before that he remembered locking up the animal, walked out to service the exhibit, the animal was still out there, and ended in tragedy. Fortunately, for this young lady, she is stable condition.

CABRERA: Yes, that is good. We will continue to follow this story. Ron Magill, thank you for end lending us your expertise today and Happy Easter and Happy Passover.

MAGILL: Same to you, Ana, thank you.

CABRERA: Thank you. Coming up, the Royal Baby watch is on. But will Harry and Meghan's bundle of joy bring a bundle of tax dilemmas, too? We will explain.


[14:52:17] CABRERA: As first-time parents to be, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have plenty to worry about already, but thanks to the U.S. tax system, there could be one more thing keeping them up at night. Here is Max Foster.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are also incredibly honored tonight we welcome to welcome their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Since Harry and Meghan announced their pregnancy last October, all eyes have been on one Royal and her emerging bump.

Even the palace accountants are taking an interest, and that's because Meghan is a U.S. citizen. Both she and her baby, the seventh in line to the throne will be liable for U.S. taxes.


DAVID TREITEL, FOUNDER OF AMERICAN TAX RETURNS, LTD: Ultimately, the tax system of the United States, the law says all income everywhere is taxed unless it's exempt, so compensation for personal injury is exempt, for example. A few other things are exempt, but most income everywhere is taxed, so if the baby has income, Meghan has income, they're taxed.


FOSTER: That could potentially open up the notoriously private Royal accounts for the IRS -- the Internal Revenue Service.


TREITEL: The Queen has got to sit there and her advisers have to sit there, thinking, what if I lend Meghan material. If I have the baby use a beautiful silver rattle that was used by Queen Victoria, how much is that worth? What's the value of it? How much is to be reported to the States? It's a tough question. It's not easy.


FOSTER: There's the wedding ring, gifted by the Queen from a nugget of Welsh Gold in the Royal collection, there's the priceless diamond in the engagement ring from Princess Diana's world famous jewelry collection. There are also the wedding presents from international Royalty and A-list friends, and the biggest gift of them all, the multimillion dollar newly renovated home in Windsor where the couple got married.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope to cook for you the next time.



MARKE: The whole family next time.


FOSTER: The only way for Meghan to avoid paying U.S. taxes will be to renounce her U.S. citizenship, however, even if she does that, the baby will still be liable to U.S. taxes until the age of 18. Max Foster, CNN, London.


CABRERA: In the CNN series "Chasing Life" Dr. Sanjay Gupta is traveling across the world to find the secrets to living better. This week, he is headed to Bolivia to seek answers about heart health, an issue that has directly affected him and his family. Here is a preview.



[14:55:09] GUPTA: This material just always has memory?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. This is material created by humans.

GUPTA: That's amazing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn't exist in the nature.

GUPTA (voice over): Franz and his team of doctors and engineers designed these devices to bend, twist and collapse into a narrow tube and always return to their original shape that way they can reach the heart through a vein, without open-heart surgery.

When it arrives at the hole, it flowers back into shape to seal the opening. And it remains inside the heart for the rest of the patient's life.

GUPTA (on camera): It's astounding, and the way that it all came together and how many lives it can save in the process is really remarkable.


CABRERA: Be sure to tune in "Chasing Life with Dr. Sanjay Gupta" airs tonight at 9:00 Eastern, only on CNN. We will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)