Return to Transcripts main page


FBI Arrests 69-Year-Old Member Of Armed Militia Detaining Migrants; Turpins Who Tortured, Starved, Children Sentenced To Life; Bolivia's Healthy Heart Formula: Food, Altitude, Sustenance Living; Zookeeper Recovering After Being Attacked By Tiger. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired April 20, 2019 - 20:00   ET



ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Hello on this Saturday evening. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thank you so much for spending part of your holiday weekend with us.

President Trump not unplugging today, as many people do on a holiday weekend. He's keeping his foot on the gas after the Mueller report was released, sending a barrage of tweets even before the sun came up today, 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 worse names. He changed that to honorable this year. Now, apparently, he's back to conflicted.

And last, do you think the president slaps out on Twitter only at Democrats? Oh, no. This a short time ago. If Mitt Romney spent the same energy fighting Barack Obama as he does fighting Donald Trump, he could have won the race, maybe.

Senator Romney one of the very few Republicans in Congress speaking out against the president. He reacted to the release of the Mueller report yesterday, saying he was sickened by what he called dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office in the land, including the president. Trump has ripped the Mueller report as crazy, fabricated, and totally untrue. But remember, just recently he felt a whole lot differently.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, do you think Robert Mueller acted honorably?


I've been totally exonerated. No collusion. No obstruction.

The special counsel completed its report and found no collusion and no obstruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: So, what happened? Maybe he read what was actually in the report. Or, more likely, he saw what people were saying about it on T.V. That instead of exonerating him, Mueller's report actually exposed 10 times President Trump may have obstructed justice. Suggesting the FBI director let Michael Flynn go. Pressuring the attorney general to reverse his recusal. Firing the FBI director. Trying to get rid of the special counsel. Trying to limit the investigation. Coordinating lies about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, again. Trying to get Jeff Sessions to take over the investigation. Telling his White House counsel to lie about his attempts to remove Mueller. Dangling pardons. And criticizing his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, while he was cooperating with prosecutors.

Now, some Congressional Democrats are demanding the start of impeachment proceedings. Others in the party remain unconvinced and they'll hold a conference, we know, on Monday to discuss the next steps.

CNN White House Correspondent Boris Sanchez is in West Palm Beach near the president's Mar-a-Lago resort. And, Boris, as this impeachment debate plays out, we know Democrats are united in demanding the full unredacted report. But that's setting up a fight with the Justice Department.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Ana. And that is likely a fight that will end up in court. The House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler filing a subpoena, demanding to see the full Mueller report, totally unredacted, including information that was redacted because it was sensitive Grand Jury-related testimony.

Democrats want to see all the underlying evidence here. Nadler set a deadline of May first for the Department of Justice to comply with his request. The Department of Justice fired back in a statement, saying that the subpoena was unnecessary. They write, quote, "In the interest of transparency, the attorney general released the special counsel's confidential report with only minimal redactions. The Department of Justice has also made arrangements for Chairman Nadler and other Congressional leaders to review the report 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 interests."

Meantime, President Trump spent most of his Saturday at Trump National Golf Club here in Palm Beach, Florida. And when he was driving back to Mar-a-Lago, he gave a they enthusiastic double thumbs up to supporters that were lined up on the sidewalks trying to greet the president.

Despite those appearances, though, we're hearing from sources behind the scenes that President Trump is fuming over details in the Mueller report. Details coming from mostly former White House aides, painting a picture of a chaotic White House with a paranoid and angry president. And many of those aides revealing that they either refused or ignored many of his orders. The president has no scheduled events today. He will likely attend the Easter service tomorrow here in Palm Beach before heading back to Washington, D.C. -- Ana.

CABRERA: OK. Boris Sanchez, thanks for the update from Mar-a-Lago or near Mar-a-Lago.

Despite Mueller's conclusion of no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, his report exposed key missions and outright lies by the president on several topics, including the idea that he didn't have any business dealings with Russia.

[20:05:08] 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've 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 e-mails?


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails 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 e- mails 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 e-mail accounts.

And remember that story about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer? Mueller writes that the president dictated a statement about the meeting to the -- to be issued by Donald Trump, Jr., describing the meeting as about adoption. Now, 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 that 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?


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Regardless of recommendation, 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's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.


CABRERA: According to Mueller, he left out 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 another DOJ official 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 back in his chair and said, "Oh, my god, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm f'd."

Now, in the wake of the Mueller report, some people believe it's apparent that 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 report, mainly 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.


FOREMAN: Watch out for people that take 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 probe. It was McGahn who refused to fire the 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 on what he 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 a 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 Joseph McCarthy during his infamous campaign to root out communists. And he worked 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 eventually lost his license for unethical conduct.

Still, before McGahn left the White House last fall, Trump said he would not be a rat.


[20:10:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any concern about what he said to the Mueller team?


FOREMAN: 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 (on camera): 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.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.


CABRERA: With us now, CNN Legal Analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu, and "Washington Post" columnist, David Von Drehle. Shan, let's pick up where Tom Foreman left off there, the role of Don McGahn. Do you believe he rescued the Trump presidency?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think he ended up helping the president from not committing more overt obstruction. But what's in the report reveals that the president really already did commit a lot of obstruction. So, I think McGahn should certainly be credited for following his conscience and refusing to do something that he had felt was wrong.

I don't know that, in the end, it necessarily saves the presidency, because all the details are still coming out. And they're very troubling details. And I personally think it's quite clear, from the report, that Mueller found enough evidence to charge him with obstruction but did not do so because he's the president. CABRERA: So, you think if he weren't the president of the United States, he would be indicted now?

WU: Yes, absolutely. And one point to that, again, you know, my opinion as a former prosecutor. One of the reasons they didn't push so hard to interview him, in part, there's a timing question, it would have taken a long time. But, also, as I read it, I was, like, I don't need to interview this guy. I already got him just based on the stuff that's out there publicly.

CABRERA: That's interesting. David, go back to McGahn for just a second. Do you think he was looking out for the president or himself?

DAVID VON DREHLE, COLUMNIST, "WASHINGTON POST": Probably both. But I think the White House legal strategy writ large, you know, led by Don McGahn but also by Ty Cobb and others, was very effective. Both in terms of putting a lot of material and making a lot of people available to Mueller. That makes it hard to argue that they were obstructing justice, when they were burying the special counsel in material.

And, secondly, in terms of very effective leaking over the past two years, almost everything we knew about what was, you know, being looked at by Special Counsel Mueller was leaked by the White House. And, as a result, they were able to trickle out a lot of this story, very damaging story, over two years, rather than have it all land with a gigantic thud in the report.

CABRERA: It took some of the shock value away, I suppose. Mueller writes 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 memory was refreshed and documentary materials available."

So, Shan, does Mueller potentially tee up a possible prosecution of Trump after he leaves office?

WU: Absolutely, he does. He preserved what's necessary to be preserved, memories, documents, so that a prosecution could still be viable sometime after the fact. And that's quite ominous. I mean, it indicates that it's possible he could be prosecuted.

And, really, what Mueller was doing was, since apparently they early on decided they would not bring charges no matter what they found because he was the president, he wanted to make sure that everybody knew what their options were. In particular, they do a great job, really nice legal writing, starting about page 159, attacking, dissecting, and completely refuting the arguments made by Trump's legal team as to why obstruction cannot apply to the president.

I think David's right. They did a great job of leaking over time to try and take away some of the impact. But I think the smartest thing they did was never allow Trump to sit down in the room under oath.

CABRERA: Yes. David, one of the reasons I wanted to have you on was because of the piece you wrote for "Time" right after Mueller was appointed in 2017. And you said, quote, "Mueller must be careful and measured and honest and open. If finds offences, he must lay them out clearly with every T crossed. If he finds none, he must issue equally clear and compelling exonerations. America is hungry for fair dealers. Mueller can do his part by proving himself to be one."

Did Mueller deliver?

VON DREHLE: I think he did. And I don't always say that when, you know, both sides are angry with you, it proves you did a good job.

[20:15:05] But, in this case, I think there's something to that. He has disappointed both the president's supporters and the president's opponents.

But what I think he has done is lay out the facts as he was able to find them. He went deeply into the story. And he told it clearly and without an obvious bias one way or the other. And now, people can -- Americans can read it and make of it what they want.

I think this kicks it to the political process which is where -- really where, you know, the question of who's president belongs, is with politics. And we have an election coming up and Americans can factor this into their decision in 18 months.

CABRERA: Quickly, both, if you will. Do you think it's necessary for Mueller to testify? David, I'll start with you.

VON DREHLE: I think he should testify, yes. There's no reason for him not to. He can -- he's certainly a very intelligent, disciplined, experienced witness in front of Congress. And he's not going to be tricked into saying things he doesn't intend to say or going farther than he wants to go.

But I think the American people should hear his voice and see him, you know, in front of the cameras.

CABRERA: We have 400 pages of his voice in this report. Shan, what's your take?

WU: I think it would be hard for him to resist being able to testify. I watch -- I would predict for the Justice Department to fight tooth and nail for him not to testify. They don't want him adding anything to what he's already said.

CABRERA: All right, Shan Wu, David Von Drehle, good to have both of you with us. Thank you so much.

WU: Good to see you.

CABRERA: Happy Passover and Happy Easter.

WU: You too.

VON DREHLE: Same to you.

CABRERA: White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders admits to Mueller she lied to the press. How she's spinning it now. Plus, new developments in the story we reported about an armed militia group detaining hundreds of people at the U.S.-Mexico border. The FBI now arresting a member of this group. We have the latest live in the CNN Newsroom.



CABRERA: Welcome back. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders coming under fire after admitting she misled the press about why President Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey. Here's what she said back in May of 2017.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, what's your response to these rank and file FBI agents who disagree with your contention that they lost faith in director Comey?

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, we've heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things.


CABRERA: Sanders revealed she was interviewed by the special counsel's office late last year. And now we know at least one thing they discussed, the comments you just heard. The report revealing, quote, "That her reference to hearing from countless members of the FBI was a slip of the tongue.

She also recalled that her statement in a second press interview that rank and file agents of the FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made in the heat of the moment that was not founded on anything."

Here's how Sanders defended her comments on ABC yesterday.


SANDERS: I said the slip of the tongue was in using the word countless. But there were a number of FBI, both former and current, that agreed with the president's decision. And they've continued to speak out and say that it was in the heat of the moment, meaning that it wasn't a scripted talking point. I'm sorry that I wasn't a robot like the Democrat Party that went out for two and a half years and stated, time and time again, that there was definitely Russian collusion between the president and his campaign.


CABRERA: Let's discuss with CNN Chief Media Correspondent and Anchor of "RELIABLE SOURCES" Brian Stelter, and "New York Times" White House correspondent, and CNN Political Analyst Michael Shear.

Michael, you were skeptical of her comments at the time. You actually gave her a chance to explain then the very next day. Let's watch.


MICHAEL SHEAR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: On the FBI thing, and I'm not trying to be overly combative here, but you said now today, and I think you said again yesterday, that you personally have talked to countless FBI officials, employees since this happened.

SANDERS: Correct.

SHEAR: I mean, really? Like -- I mean, really? I mean, so, are we talking about --

SANDERS: Between, like, e-mail, text messages, absolutely, yes.

SHEAR: Was it 50, 60, 70?

SANDERS: I'm not going to -- look, we're not going to get into a numbers game. I mean, I have heard from a large number of individuals that work at the FBI that said that they're very happy with the president's decision. I mean, I don't know what else I can tell you.


CABRERA: Michael, what's your reaction now to learning that she wasn't truthful in it her response?

SHEAR: Well, look, I mean, the reason that this is so damning, I think, for her as a press secretary, is that she -- this wasn't a slip of the tongue. As you saw, this was -- she had multiple opportunities. If she had wanted to say that day, oh, I mean, you know, countless is maybe overstating it. She could have walked that back in that press briefing. She could have walked it back the next day, when talked -- went on other --


SHEAR: -- shows. And it's really the line that we rarely have seen press secretaries cross, right? I mean, it's a high stress job. Things come out of a press secretary's mouth. Sometimes they do overstate something. Usually, what happens is they realize that their credibility is at risk if they don't quickly fix it.

And so, you know, press secretaries, in the past, have come back and said, look, you know, I overstated that or I misspoke or what have you. And they try to repair the damage of the relationship between the press and the presidency.

And the thing so striking about Sarah is that she has -- she, I mean, probably because of who she works for, has never attempted to repair the damage that that kind of comment and others have made. And that's really what's so striking, I think, about it.

CABRERA: Brian, what does this mean for Sarah Sanders' credibility?

[20:25:00] STELTER: It means she has none left. I mean, she has zero credibility.

CABRERA: Did she have -- did she have some before we learned this in Mueller's report?

STELTER: I think what is striking about this and why it takes it to a different level is because under oath she's telling the truth which is that she made it up at those briefings. So, it puts a final nail in that so-called coffin.

However, the president seems to like her in this role. We haven't seen reporting to -- that -- that suggest otherwise. We do know the president has been frustrated by some of the people that spoke with the Mueller team and maybe Sanders is one of those people and maybe there will be consequences down the line.

But it seems the president believes she's a loyalist. She has contempt for the press and that's what he wants. That is a small part of the problem that you were subscribing earlier, about the brazenness of the lies from the White House.


STELTER: That the lying is the through line of the presidency and Sarah Sanders is a part of that.

CABRERA: And that's what I was going to ask you, Michael, about as well. Is Sarah Sanders' lie essentially a product of the culture established by the president's own relationship with the truth?

SHEAR: Yes. I mean, look, I think one -- if you look at the reporting, since we're, sort of, talking about the media here. If you look at the reporting, over the last two and a half years, one of the things that the press has tried and I think successfully documented is that that culture of dishonesty that has pervaded the entire White House.

What is -- what is different about the Mueller report is that the president and his -- and his loyalists can look at the media and say, oh, that's fake news. They're the enemy of the people, et cetera. They're using anonymous sources or fake sources or whatever he wants to say. You can't say that about the premier, you know, investigative branch of the federal government.

And Mueller represents the Justice Department. And what he laid out was, essentially, what we've been writing about for the past two and a half years. And so, I think, at least in the history books -- whether it works politically in the short term. But in the history books, the Trump -- Trump and his lieutenants can't demonize and run away from the culture that's described in that report the way that he can or at least tried to from the media.

CABRERA: I want to take a look at some of the headlines from the major papers the morning after the Mueller report dropped. "The Washington Post." Mueller details Russia interference. Trump's attempts to disrupt probe. "The New York Times" says, Mueller report lays out Russian contacts and Trump's frantic efforts to foil inquiry. "The Boston Globe" you can read there. Report says officials block Trump's efforts to seize control of Mueller investigation. Michael, it's a pretty -- it's pretty start contrast there with what's been coming out of the White House.

SHEAR: Yes. Well, and I think the thing that really is remarkable is the contrast between the president and the White House's reaction now versus what it was three or four weeks ago.

STELTER: Right. Right.

SHEAR: When all anybody knew was the -- was the, sort of, four-page summary that the attorney general put out.

CABRERA: Yes. The White House, essentially, had three and a half weeks to shape this narrative.

SHEAR: Well, and they shaped it wrongly, as it turns out. The president, you know, declared himself totally exonerated on both parts, the collusion and the -- and the obstruction. And, of course, it turned out not to be the case at all.

And so, I think part of the president's, sort of, lashing out over the last several days is, he's embarrassed. He's embarrassed in a sense that he, you know, tried to get out there for several weeks and claimed that there was -- that he was completely exonerated on the obstruction piece when the report says anything but.

CABRERA: And now, Brian, we have booksellers and Mueller's report is a new bestseller, right?


CABRERA: Is that -- is that an indication that the public wants to see the facts for themselves? They want to cut out the spin?

STELTER: At least one part of the public, yes. I think this report came out in one form but it came out in two worlds. And, certainly, the spin -- the president's spin on Fox is very different.

But as for the actual text of the report, it's not just number one on Amazon, it's number one, number two, and number three. Three different versions of the report all bestsellers already. And that does show, at least among a portion of the population, a real interest in it diving deep and having a copy of this for history. That is the best way to contradict and counteract the big lies we're hearing from the White House. The no obstruction lie. The other lies that are coming from Trump.

The best way to counteract it and to counteract it and to clean up the truth, is to keep talking, talking, and talking about it. I think printing out the report and reading the report is part of that.


STELTER: You've got your copy right there.

CABRERA: Read all about it.

STELTER: For free.

CABRERA: Read all about it.

STELTER: Because of the printer. You have a printer.

CABRERA: I know, there's so much.

STELTER: You have it so marked up. Look at how many markings you have.

SHEAR: I love the sticky notes, that's great.

CABEREA: That's how I operate. And, of course, that was supposed to make it easier to go back and find things. I don't know if it does that or not.

Michael Shear, Brian Stelter, good conversation.

STELTER: Thanks.

SHEAR: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: Thanks, guys. Tune in tomorrow morning to "RELIABLE SOURCES" at 11:00 a.m. with Brian right here on CNN.

New developments this hour. The FBI now arresting this man, a member of the armed militia that has been detaining hundreds of migrants at the border this week. Details ahead.



[20:30:05] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: New tonight, the FBI arrests a 69-year-old member of an armed American militia group that detained nearly 300 Central American migrants this week in the southeast corner of New Mexico.

Now, the ACLU is putting it bluntly, calling the militia group's actions kidnapping. We're just getting the mug shot now of the suspect arrested today. The FBI says the man in this photo, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, belongs to a militia group, called United Constitutional Patriots. He now faces felony charges of possessing firearms and ammunition. Hopkins is from New Mexico where he's also known as Johnny Horton, Jr.

Here's a video posted online by that same militia group. You can see armed men wearing masks and dressed in military fatigues. I want to be clear, CNN has not authenticated this video or confirmed the date it was recorded.

My colleague, Nick Valencia is digging into this and has more. Nick?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ana, the group calls itself United Constitutional Patriots and they are a self-described militia group. A group of concerned citizens, they say, that are helping to secure the border and they claim that they are doing is lawful, comparing it to making a citizen's arrest.

[20:35:12] But in videos that we're about to show you, one of their members, not only falsely identifies himself as a U.S. border patrol agent, he also starts to act like one.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: U.S. border patrol. What are you guys 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, he gives commands to the migrant group, some of them children, which he has just intercepted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walk, yes. There you go.

VALENCIA: The clips were posted to the Facebook page 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: 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, dropping them over here, and running up the hill.

VALENCIA: 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: 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'll be an international crisis, we're too close to the border. It would save some time, though, wouldn't it?


VALENCIA: We reached out to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they declined to comment specifically about this group or about the social media posts that were made this week. But they did send this statement to CNN. "Interference by civilians in law enforcement matters could have public safety and legal consequences for all parties involved. Border security operations are complex and require highly trained professionals with adequate resources to protect the country."

Multiple law enforcement agencies are now investigating. Ana?

CABRERA: Nick Valencia reporting, thank you.

They were beaten, starved, and kept in chains by their parents. Coming up, the children rescued from what's been called a house of horrors in California, make emotional statements in court as Dave and Louise Turpin learn their fates.


[20:40:15] CABRERA: This story horrified us. The California couple who beat, tortured, starved, and held their 13 children hostage, at times restricting their movement by chaining them, will go to jail for a very, very long time.

David and Louise Turpin each received prison sentences of 25 years to life after pleading guilty. The children, well, say they got their lives back.

CNN's Paul Vercammen was in the courtroom.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the record, in the case of people versus David and Louise Turpin.

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The packed courtroom filled with quiet anticipation and raw emotion. Too thin, neatly addressed adult children from the Turpin family delivered heartbreaking victims statements. The judge ordered that the media not show their faces.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My parents took my whole life from me. But now I'm taking my life back. I'm in college now, and living independently. I'm a fighter. I'm strong. VERCAMMEN: The defendants, Louise and David Turpin, sobbed, listening to toned-down testimony of torture and captivity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cannot describe in words what we went through growing up. Sometimes, I still have nightmares of things that had happened such as my siblings being chained up or getting beaten. But that is the past and this is now. I love my parents and have forgiven them for a lot of the things they did to us.

VERCAMMEN: The young woman wiped tears from her face throughout the sentencing hearing especially when her parents gave their statements.

LOUISE TURPIN, MOTHER: I'm sorry for everything I've done to hurt my children. I love our children so much.

DAVID TURPIN, FATHER: I miss all of my children. And I will be praying for them. I'll always look for the opportunity to have contact with them again. Thank you.

VERCAMMEN: The sensational house of horrors case broke more than a year ago. The Turpins' then 17-year-old daughter climbed through a window in their Perris, California home, called 911 on a deactivated phone. ABC News obtained the chilling phone call.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And how many of your siblings are tied up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two of my sisters, one of my brothers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How are they tied up, with rope or with what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With chains. They're chained up to their beds.

VERCAMMEN: Now, the attorney for the adult Turpin children says all 13 siblings seen in old photos in those matching outfits are doing well.

VERCAMMEN: The lawyer for the Turpin children says they're attending sport events, they're learning to grocery shop. They're moving away from the painful terror-filled childhood that led to their parents being sent to prison for at least 25 years.

Reporting from Riverside, California, I'm Paul Vercammen.


[20:45:01] BREAM: In a new series, Dr. Sanjay Gupta is traveling across the globe to find the secrets to living better. He joins me live with a preview of tonight's new episode, next.


CABRERA: Dr. Sanjay Gupta is in a brand-new mission. It's the latest in his CNN original series "Chasing Life," journeying across the world to find the secrets to living better, for the mind, body, and soul.

And this week, Sanjay heads to Bolivia to seek answers about heart health, an issue that is directly affected him and his family. Here's a preview.


[20:50:57] DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: We're headed to the river for fish. And anything else they can catch. It's subsistence living, which I know has its benefits.

GUPTA (on-camera): Part of the reason they're so healthy is because they have to really exert themselves. They have to be really active, work very hard just to get a meal.

GUPTA (voice-over): Research shows the Tsimane are on the move nearly 90 percent of their waking hours.

If you have a Fitbit, that's an average of 17,000 steps every day. Back home, most of us are lucky if we hit 5,000. And to make up for it, we pay nearly $30 billion on gym and health club memberships and still develop more heart disease than they do.

GUPTA (on-camera): I mean, it is amazing. We've seen this before, but never so starkly in this idea that wealth does not buy health. In fact, it probably sacrifices it.

All right. I see my bow and arrow teacher how he does here.

Nothing comes easily out here. That's part of what it's all about.


CABRERA: That sure looks peaceful. With us now, back from Bolivia, our chief medical correspondent and host of "Chasing Life," Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Sanjay, I know this trip was not just up your alley as a doctor, but it really had personal resonance with you. Tell us about it.

GUPTA: Yes. I have a strong family history of heart disease, my father and my grandfather. You know, I think that when you have that, you think of sort of preordained for you that this is going to happen for you, as well. In the United States, you have hundreds of thousands of people who are dying from heart disease. It's the number one killer for men and women alike.

We're spending $1 billion a day on heart disease. What struck me about this indigenous tribe in the middle of the Amazon rain forest, deep in the forest, was that they don't even have a health care system and, yet, they have virtually no heart disease. It's pretty remarkable. A lot of it has to do with the way that they eat, the way that they move, the way that they interact with the environment. But it's inspiring. It can be done in relatively simple ways.

CABRERA: You visited parts of Bolivia that have very high altitude. The capital, La Paz, two miles high, more than 10,000 feet. And I thought this was really interesting and particularly curious about it coming from the Mile High city, born and raised in Denver, Colorado.

You found that high altitude can have positive and negative effects on Bolivian people's hearts. How does that work?

GUPTA: Yes. I mean, you probably experience this, Ana. If you go to high altitude pretty suddenly, people can develop altitude sickness. They don't feel well. Their body has to acclimate.

What was interesting, and what the researchers started to look at was that there were people who were living an extraordinarily long time when they were living at very high altitudes, 12,000 to 14,000 feet. And they started to study their hearts.

And what they realized is that while in the short term, it can be hard to acclimate, you can develop certain illnesses. In the long term, people who live at that altitude, people who might otherwise, have heart disease can be somewhat protective from it. It's the altitude, somehow, makes the heart and the way that the oxygen is traveling to organs in the body work differently. And it seems to be protective in a way. So these researchers, I think because they live at that altitude, had bene looking into this for some time.

CABRERA: You also go deep into the Amazon. You hang out with people from a tribe who have the healthiest hearts in the world. What's their secret?

GUPTA: It's an audacious statement, right? To say they have the healthiest hearts in the world. But that's what scientists have found now. They go around the world, looking for the healthiest hearted people. And it used to be Japanese women. Now, it's this tribe known as the Tsimane tribe deep in the Amazon rainforest. That's a lot of what the show is about tonight.

But I'll tell you just a quick secret, Ana, because I think it was interesting. Besides how they eat, and how they move, and how they rest, one of the things is, most of them live with some degree of infection in their bodies, which initially in life, causes a few days of illness, but probably changes their immune system in a way that actually helps them not develop many diseases, including heart disease.

Our own immune systems often, Ana, either ignite or worsen a lot of diseases. That's the truth. And we live in these self-imposed hygienic bubbles in the pursuit of good health, no doubt, but we may be doing more harm than good.

And when you see how the Tsimane live tonight, it kind of opens your eyes into, again, the way that we interact with our own environment.

BREAM: So many lessons to learn. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, we look forward to it. Thank you.

GUPTA: Thanks, Ana. You got it. Thank you.

BREAM: Be sure to tune in in just a few minutes. The newest episode of "Chasing Life" with Dr. Sanjay Gupta is next here on CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:55:17] CABRERA: some serious questions are being asked tonight about how the Topeka Kansas Zoo handles its tigers. This after a 7- year-old male named Sanjiv attacked a zookeeper worker this morning, sending her to the hospital with puncture wounds to the back of her head, neck, arm, and her back. It's not sure why the worker and that animal were in the same space at the time.

The zoo says it's investigating but it appears the rare Sumatran tiger was not at fault and won't be euthanized. The Topeka Zoo reporting the zookeeper is now in stable condition tonight. Also noting that Sanjiv, the tiger that attacked, recently fathered four critically endangered tiger cubs as part of the zoo's species survival plan.

That does it for us. Thank you for being here. "Chasing Life" with Sanjay Gupta starts right now. Happy Easter.