Return to Transcripts main page


Mueller Report Exposes Sarah Sanders' Trouble with Truth; Sarah Sanders Admits She Lied to the Press Corps; Prince Harry Attends Easter Service without Pregnant Wife. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired April 21, 2019 - 20:00   ET




ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN newsroom. I am Alex Marquardt in for Ana Cabrera on this Easter Sunday. We have breaking news overseas. Right now, there more than 200 people who have been killed, more than 500 others wounded, after a string of bombings hit a number of churches and hotels.

These scenes in Sri Lanka earlier today, Easter Sunday. No known terror group has claimed responsibility yet for these attacks. Several Americans are reportedly among the dead and wounded. Officials say the first six bombs went off in quick succession plunging the country into chaos, flooding hospitals with casualties.

The entire country went into lockdown. Twenty-one million people told to stay in their homes while police and military officials work to find out who is behind the attacks. For more we go to CNN senior international correspondent Sam Kiley. He is in the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, right now.

Sam, it will soon be daylight where you are. That curfew will soon be lifted. It is already, where you are, the morning after this horrific attack. So as the sun comes up, as the day starts, are we expecting more answers from Sri Lankan officials?

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alex, there has actually been a small development in that the curfew's now been extended indefinitely. Now that isn't -- shouldn't be seen as an act of panic but one in which the authorities are trying to get a grip on a situation that, from their perspective, is not over.

And that is because the prime minister's recently said that three police officers were killed during an operation, a follow-up operation to try to capture some suspects in a building that they had under observation. Special forces and police went in and apparently, it is believed they triggered an improvised explosive device.

But there have been seven arrests. Still no identification of who was behind the murder of 207 people, the injury of 560, attacks on three churches and three hotels, mostly here on the west coast but also one coordinated at the same time on the far other side of this island nation, Alex.

Now there is also going to be recriminations, and the prime minister's alluded to that, too. He said that intelligence that had been in circulation of an impending attack, or the danger of one, had not reached his desk and that would be subject to an investigation. CNN have seen a memo, Alex, from the number two policeman here.

The deputy inspector general sent to his colleagues in which he quotes intelligence - national intelligence organizations, saying that there is a plan for a suicidal attack by the leader of nations, Tawheed Jamaat, and he names he leader as a Muhammad Sahara. Now there's been no direct connection made between the events of Easter Sunday and this group, not yet, though.

But what there has been is, already, statements coming from several politicians and ministers and ordinary people in Sri Lanka, asking why there was no increase in security as a consequence of this intelligence, following a memo that actually required it, Alex.

MARQUARDT: Yes, one of the many questions that will - people will be looking for answers for in the days ahead. Sam Kiley in Colombo, thank you very much. I want to bring in Juliette Kayyem. She is a former assistant

secretary at the department of Homeland Security and a CNN national security analyst.

Juliette, this happened in Sri Lanka. We don't often see Sri Lanka in the headlines when it comes to terrorism. When you look at the targets, these hotels where there were foreigners, these catholic churches, when you - these attacks taking place in various cities around the country, which indicates some sort of sophistication, what jumps out at you when you saw what happened on easter sunday in Sri Lanka?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, obviously, first, the targets, of course, churches on Easter Sunday, along with sort of high-end hotels that would cater to westerners or non- nationals in Sri Lanka. That would be the first. The second is the - it's just the nature of the coordinated attacks. That is not easy to do to get that many people willing to either bomb or be suicide bombers.

I don't think we know yet how these were conducted. But just the - the synchronization of that many attacks means that it was well planned. This is not something - you know, this is not a - sort of multiple lone wolf attacks, obviously. And then the third is that there seems to be no dearth of potential terrorists that could claim responsibility.


We are now many hours beyond the attacks. There's lots of stuff online. Everyone from ISIS, of course, which has attacked churches, to Al-Qaeda, which has done the same, to groups based in Indonesia and elsewhere, including the group that had given a warning or that the Sri Lankan officials were worried about.

And the fact that no one has claimed responsibility yet just means the investigation is going to be full force until they can figure out which group. All of the Islamicist (ph) was responsible for this.

MARQUARDT: Juliette, what do you make of the warning and the impression that it was not heeded, at least in terms of beefing up security around these very sensitive locations?

KAYYEM: Right. Right. So the warning, as I read the memo, was it did seem to be sort of concerns for what you might call, you know, the sort of lone wolf attack, that there is some - some concerns about terrorism. Nothing of this magnitude. This is one of the most lethal terrorist attacks since 9/11 in a much smaller country, of course, Sri Lanka, with multiple attacks on such a day of worship.

So while this - while this is leading evidence, right, the concerns about a particular group in this memo, I certainly would not stop there, in particular, because of activity that we've seen from ISIS online about retribution for attacks against Muslims, as well as the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq and other organizations are trying to expand their - their focus, or their sites, of attacks.

Unfortunately, there's just - there's just, you know, no dearth of potential suspects at this stage. And that's why this investigation will move forward, taking that concern relayed in the memo into account but it cannot be dispositive.

MARQUARDT: Juliette, this does have the hallmarks of attacks from groups like ISIS and - and, previously, Al-Qaeda, but it's really ISIS that we jump to a conclusion about these days. Are you surprised that there hasn't been a real claim of responsibility?

KAYYEM: You know, ISIS is - is odd. There's just sort of no - no rhyme or reason to when exactly they will claim responsibility. I just look at the data or the evidence. We know that in Egypt, Indonesia and the Philippines, they have attacked church - churches in the past.

Their websites and the organizations that follow their websites talk about a tremendous amount of activity right now, in these last couple of hours, about either claiming credit or that, you know, this is in response for, you know, New Zealand and attacks on Muslims.

But until you can actually get sufficient evidence and validate even the claim of responsibility that, you know, Sri Lanka and their neighbors, which - who are clearly helping with this investigation, including us because of the presence we have throughout the area, we'll - we'll want to validate even the claim of responsibility.

But, of course, we would be idiots not to look to ISIS at this stage, but there are other potential organized terrorist groups that could be responsible and, obviously, attacking a church is key evidence of, you know, their - their motivation.

MARQUARDT: Right. Whether or not, Juliette, this was ISIS, when we see that they've lost so much territory in Iraq and Syria -


MARQUARDT: - is it your sense, as others have theorized, that they will want to carry out attacks around the world to essentially tell the world that despite having lost that territory that they're still very much a force to be reckoned with?

KAYYEM: That's exactly right. I mean no one in counterterrorism thought that the end of the caliphate and successes on the military mission would end in ideology. In fact, the ideology only exists, or can only thrive, with proof of success of attacks. And those attacks cannot happen - or not happening in Iraq and Syria to the extent they used to because they don't own as much -- they don't own any land at this stage.

So then you would just think the tentacles that are relayed through social media and through planning and assistance and planning are going to have an impact in other countries. I will just put one caveat to this. This was highly orchestrated. This is hard to do just by online radicalization.

That's what we tend to think of in the United States, right? Some guy, you know, gets radicalized, you know, gets guns and walks into a soft target. This - this required much more organization, and that's a presence in Sri Lanka, whether it's ISIS or another organization that we have not seen recently, especially since the devastating civil war that they had - they had lived with for so many years.

MARQUARDT: Right. Which is a very good point. It should give us all a significant pause. Juliette Kayyem, thank you so much for your expertise.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: All right, well coming up -- nothing wrong with taking information from the Russians, or so says the president's attorney, Rudy Giuliani. His argument., plus, what he revealed about plans for a rebuttal to the Mueller report.



MARQUARDT: Tomorrow, for the first time since the release of the redacted Mueller report, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will speak with her fellow Democrats, as a group, by phone, about the special counsel's findings. She did call them a grave matter. Democrats want the full report, and they want Mueller to testify in front of Congress.

But there is one question they aren't so certain about, and it will, without a doubt, come up tomorrow. Should the president of the United States face impeachment? Right now, just five House Democrats are supporting a measure backing that step. Today, hesitance was clear among one of the chamber's most important members.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD): I'm not - I'm not there yet, but I - I - I can foresee that possibly coming. And so, I think that we need to make sure that Congress has all the information, and then we need to be able to have the public know that information.



MARQUARDT: The president seemed to dismiss any personal concerns about impeachment in a tweet, late today, after returning from Florida. Meanwhile, his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, today offered a unique view on communicating with Russians after Mueller spent nearly two years investigating how close Moscow might have gotten to the Trump campaign.


RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP'S LAWYER: There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: There's nothing wrong with taking information -

GIULIANI: It depends on where it came from. It depends on where it came from. You're assuming that the giving of information is a campaign contribution. Read the report carefully. The report says we can't conclude that because the law is pretty much against that. Do you - people get information from this person and that person and -

TAPPER: So you would - you would have accepted information from Russians against a client - against a - against a candidate if you were running in the presidential election?

GIULIANI: I probably - I probably wouldn't. I wasn't asked. I would have advised, just out of excessive caution, don't do it. I'll give you another thing though -

TAPPER: But you're saying - but you're saying there was nothing wrong with doing that? You - I mean that -

GIULIANI: There's no - there's no crime.

GIULIANI: You just said you wouldn't accept help from the Russians if you were -

TAPPER: I don't know if I would or I wouldn't. The legal advice I would give is out of an excess of caution, don't do it. But maybe that's informed somewhat by what's going on right now and what we've learned since then. The reality is you are picking on a minor point when the major point is he was pursued for years for a false charge. Two FBI investigations, one with four affidavits for electronic surveillance that turn out to be fraudulent, that's a big crime. Now, it turns out he didn't do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) MARQUARDT: So for more, joining me are former Trump White House lawyer

and CNN legal commentator Jim Schultz and former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Renato Mariotti. Jim, first you. You heard Giuliani there saying there's nothing wrong with a campaign taking information from the Russians, legally speaking. Is he correct?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think he was way out of bounds there. Certainly, there is something wrong with taking information or conspiring to work with foreign nationals in connection with a campaign. But we have to remember that that didn't happen here, and Mueller found that it didn't happen here.

There was no - there was no conspiracy, no coordination between the campaign, the president and the Russian government or anyone from Russia, relative to this campaign. And that was found by Mueller. I'm not sure why he's going down that road because he doesn't need to.

MARQUARDT: Renato, do you agree?

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I will say there's obviously something wrong with accepting aid from the Russians. That's something Jim and I can agree on. But one thing I will just note is, what Rudy Giuliani is trying to get at is it's not a crime, in and of itself, to take information from Russians.

And the problem here is just that, you know, just because something's not a federal felony, just because there's not all the elements of conspiracy doesn't mean that what happened here was right or okay. And that's really the issue here, is there's a lot of people in that campaign very excited about getting aid from the Russians.

That doesn't look well, and what Giuliani's trying to say is that's a- okay. I think all of us, regardless of party, need to say that, for the future, we do not want our candidates to be accepting help or trying to seek help from foreign adversaries, period.

MARQUARDT: I want to play you guys -

SCHULTZ: It was clearly - oh, sorry.

MARQUARDT: No, no. Go ahead, Jim.

SCHULTZ: It was clearly found by Mueller that the Russians interfered with the election, right, and they attempted to interfere with the elections, and they're going to continue to interfere with the elections. So those statements just - they're not helpful. They're not - they're not from a policy perspective. They don't make sense. From a legal perspective, they don't make sense. But we just have to come back to the fact that the president didn't engage in that conduct and neither did his campaign.

MARQUARDT: Guys, I want to play another clip from that interview with - by Jake tapper with Rudy Giuliani, where Giuliani takes issue with the then-White House Counsel Don McGahn and his account that he told - that the president told him to order the firing of the special counsel Robert Mueller. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Are you suggesting McGahn is lying?

GIULIANI: No. I'm telling you. He's confused.

TAPPER: So he's confused -

GIULIANI: OK (ph), three different versions.

TAPPER: So let me ask you a question.

GIULIANI: The special prosecutor comes -

TAPPER: McGahn -

GIULIANI: - to the conclusion, he's definitively telling the truth, and his lawyer is saying that -- his lawyer should tell us which of those three versions is true. And how do you know which one is true now when he couldn't figure it out then?


MARQUARDT: Renato, we know from Mueller's report now that McGahn did take notes of the president telling him to do that. So what's Giuliani talking about?

MARIOTTI: Giuliani really needs to keep his mouth shut. I mean, honestly he's - you know, Don McGahn, I disagree with him on many issues but he's a very serious lawyer. I don't think anyone could seriously question the fact he took - as you point out, he took contemporaneous notes and under penalty of felony. I mean he could've been charged if he lied to the FBI. He told the FBI the truth of what happened. He stuck by that. His lawyer made that crystal clear.


I don't know what Giuliani is doing but, frankly, it's not helpful at all. And you know, the president needs to seek more advice from lawyers like Don McGahn, serious lawyers, than lawyers like Rudi Giuliani.

MARQUARDT: Well, guys - Jim, Giuliani had talked about preparing a rebuttal report to the Mueller report. Here's what Giuliani had to say about that.


GIULIANI: We were ready to go if we thought that a lot of the issues were left open, too open. Right now, they seem to be OK, but we're ready to put it out when we have to.

TAPPER: But you're not necessarily going to put it out?

GIULIANI: I think the odds are it'll get out at some point. For example, you have testimony coming up. I know that the attorney general is going to testify. I know that Mueller is going to testify. I assume people like McGahn will testify. I'm not sure.


MARQUARDT: Jim, if that were you, would you have put out that rebuttal by now?

SCHULTZ: I don't think I'd put out a rebuttal at this point. I mean I think that there are going to be hearings on this. There's going to be issues with executive privilege and a number of other things that are going to have to be dealt with - and also the issue relative to the 6(e) material, the House has subpoenaed the full report at this point.

Notwithstanding the fact that years and years ago, the chairman of the - representative Nadler, Chairman Nadler had wanted to protect 6(e) years ago, in another context, but now, 6(e) doesn't matter anymore. So look, I think all of this is going to flush out by and through some of these hearings. It's now a political process in Congress.

I don't know that there's a lot of benefit in putting out a rebuttal report. But going back to what Renato had said earlier, I think, you know, McGahn was put up and offered to give testimony by the White House with unfettered access to McGahn, and they did so without claiming any executive privilege. And McGahn sat there and told the truth as to what happened and what his impressions were.

And at the end of the day, if the president was concerned about conflicts of interest and things like that, there're - that's not really the job of the White House Counsel to make that judgment call as to whether Mueller has a conflict of interest or not. That's the president's private lawyers that have the ability to make those judgments.

So McGahn did make the right decision in not engaging in that issue because he was representing the White House and the president, in his capacity as president of the United States. So again, coming back to what Renato had said, we agree again, Renato, that McGahn was on the right side of this one.

MARQUARDT: Renato, when you read the Mueller report and specifically the section about obstruction, if President Trump were not the sitting president, do you think he would be indicted?

MARIOTTI: I do. I think he would have been indicted on four counts. Now, obviously, I will say that it's to be clear, some of the reason that he was able to engage in obstruction in that way is due to his office.

In other words, you know, he used and abused his office in order to try to get people to convince, for example, the attorney general to kill the Mueller investigation and so forth. But if he had resigned, you know, a few months ago, let's say, or whatever, stepped down from being president, there's no question in my mind he wouldn't be charged.

MARQUARDT: Jim, you've been agreeing with him a lot thus far (ph). What do you think? SCHULTZ: Yes. I'm not agreeing with him on that one. I think that if

Mueller had something that was chargeable in a way, he would have, you know, sent that to Congress and made recommendations on high crimes and misdemeanors. So I disagree with Renato on that. And secondly, I disagree - you know, let's remember, the underlying conduct that was being investigated never occurred.

There was never a conspiracy, never criminal conduct. The president was frustrated. The president has a right to fire James Comey. And the fact he's talking with his advisors about what to do about Mueller is also not a crime, and it's not considered obstruction of justice because, remember, Mueller worked for the executive branch of government.

So the fact he had good advisors around him that said, both politically and legally, this is not a good - this is not a good thing to do, or may have ignored some of those issues as they came up is a good thing and they are serving the president well.

MARQUARDT: Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Jim Schultz, Renato Mariotti, thanks very much.

MARIOTTI: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: All right, coming up, the criticism directed at White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders for lying from the podium and how she's now essentially doubling down.



MARQUARDT: There are a number of questions coming out of the Mueller report. Among them, when White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders steps out in front of reporters from now on, can we believe anything that she says? CNN's Randi Kaye looks at Sanders' history of not exactly telling the truth, and how she explained it to Robert Mueller.


RANDI KAYE, CNN JOURNALIST: Her job is to communicate truthfully with the White House press. But an anecdote in the Mueller report indicates that Sarah Sanders lied when she said this about the president's firing of FBI director James Comey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 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.

KAYE: That was May 10th, 2017, Sanders on camera, telling reporters that countless members of the FBI had lost confidence in Comey. Trouble is, what she said was inaccurate. Sanders herself admitted her comments were not fact based when she was questioned about it under oath by special counsel Robert Mueller, her admission, in print, on page 72. Sanders told this office that her reference to countless members of the FBI was a slip of the tongue.


She also told Mueller's team that her statement, in a separate press interview, where she said rank and file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey, was made in the heat of the moment, a statement the report says, was not founded on anything.

Within hours of the Mueller report being made public, Sanders went on damage control, saying the point she was trying to make was that both current and former FBI agents agreed with the President.

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, I acknowledge that I had a slip of the tongue when I used the word, countless, but it's not untrue. Comey was a disgraced leaker who tried to politicize and undermine the very agency he was supposed to run.

KAYE: By Friday morning, Sanders doubled down on her original statement.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, CHIEF ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: That's not a slip of the tongue, Sarah, that's a deliberate false statement.

SANDERS: Actually, if you look at what I said. 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.

KAYE: And true to form, Sanders tried to turn her misstatement around on the Democrats.

SANDERS: 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 2-1/2 years and stated time and time again that there was definitely Russian collusion between the President and his campaign.

KAYE: She continued her offense on CBS.

SANDERS: Look, I've acknowledged the word, countless, was a slip of the tongue. The big takeaway here is that the sentiment is 100 percent accurate. The FBI is a better place without James Comey.

KAYE: The backlash against Sanders, from members of the press, was swift, one CBS reporter pointing out that even though Sanders called it a slip of the tongue, she said it two days in a row. We asked Sarah Sanders to comment on calls for her firing. But she didn't respond. Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.


ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN NEWS HOST: Joining me now is CNN Political Analyst and New York Times Politics Editor, Patrick Healy, Patrick, thanks so much for joining us, on Sunday night.


MARQUARDT: If this was indeed a slip of the tongue, and Sanders was concerned about saying something that was untruthful, should she not have come out and corrected herself that day, the next day, a month later, when there was another briefing?

HEALY: I mean, these are the talking points that President Trump and others in the administration send to Sarah Sanders and others out with her, at least, sort of the sense that they're talking about behind the scenes.

President Trump uses phrases like many, many, all the time, sometimes, countless. These broad generalities to, sort of, convey, you know, an intensity of emotion for the specific position that he is defending. In this case, in his mind, he likes to think that countless FBI agents would dislike James Comey, would be happy to see him go.

What is it based on? What is it based on? I don't know how much Sarah Sanders is fact-checking the President of the United States and saying, well, sir, when, you know, when we say things like this, what is it actually based on, factually?

So, yes, you could have said if a press secretary knows that she was taking a slip of the tongue, two days in a row, and could come out and say that. But, the reality is, is that a lot of the evidence suggests that, you know, this wasn't a slip of the tongue. That she was basically parroting a viewpoint --


HEALY: -- that was very important to the President, to have out there.

MARQUARDT: Every spokesperson for a president has their talking points. They all spin, but do you feel that Sanders has taken it farther than anyone else?

HEALY: I think, she and -- she has a very specific relationship with this president, who she serves. She knows that he cares very much about a press secretary who will go out and defend how he sees the world. In his point view of, there were all of these FBI agents who didn't like James Comey.

What was that based on? Maybe, you know, some people were telling him that, but as far as we know, there weren't FBI agents calling President Trump and saying, hey, good job, good job on this. So, she, again, with that specific relationship, she knows that he is watching. He watches --


HEALY: -- you know, T.V. constantly. He's watching her. And the degree to which he speaks in these broad statements that makes it sound like, you know, so many people --


HEALY: -- countless, countless people are taking the side of the President. It's what he wants to hear. And this White House is -- you know, the current staff of the White House, that's what they work toward, telling him what he wants to hear.

MARQUARDT: We said the same thing about Sean Spicer, really is that audience of one.

HEALY: It's the audience of one. And Sean Spicer knew it, Sarah Sanders knew it. They know that the traditional relationship with the press corps is gone, at least, for this presidency.

[20:35:07] You know, this is a -- this a sort of an abnormal, certainly president by tradition standards, and that having a relationship where you know that you have the credibility and that kind of honest relationship, honest broker relationship with press corps, at least, it hasn't been the animating thing for the person at the podium.

MARQUARDT: Right. And the proof is in the pudding. Let's just take a quick look at some of the numbers. The stats, it has been 41 days since the last on-camera briefing, at the White House, and only two briefings have taken place in the last 100 days. So, to your point, do you think they've just stopped trying?

HEALY: I think that they don't see a real point to these press briefings. That they believe that reporters are sitting there looking to either catch them in lies, catch them in misstatements, or just, sort of, hammer what they see as, kind of, a liberal agenda, so I don't think they see any point to it.

And the reality is, is that credibility is now, sort of, post-Mueller report, you know, just strained that much further. What's it like to be in a room when Sarah Sanders knows that all of these professionals may not really believe what she's saying.

And all the professionals don't really, you know, look at Sarah Sanders and don't know where any of this information is coming from in any kind of factual way. It gets, sort of, surreal and you have to wonder, is it just a circus? What is the point of these press briefings?

MARQUARDT: Really is a circus. Patrick Healy, thank you so much.

HEALY: Thanks, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right. Well, coming up, as the world awaits the arrival of a new royal baby, there are reports that Harry and Meghan may be moving to Africa. So, what's behind that story? We'll ask our royal expert, next.



MARQUARDT: As the world anxiously awaits the newest member of the British royal family to arrive, Prince Harry attended Easter services, this morning, with his family. Notably absent was his pregnant wife, Meghan Markle.

The Duke of Sussex and the Duchess did wish, the queen, a happy birthday on their Instagram account today, writing Happy Birthday, your Majesty, Ma'am, Granny. Wishing you the most wonderful day.

So, as the royal baby watch continues, CNN's Max Foster has more on how this young couple is expected to break with royal baby traditions.


MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They are the most modern of royal couples. She is an American, former Hollywood actress.

PATRICK J. ADAMS, ACTOR: Wow. You're pretty.

MEGHAN MARKLE, FORMER ACTRESS, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: Good. You hit on me. We can get it out of the way that I'm not interested.

FOSTER: He's the one-time playboy prince who's now trying to bust taboos around mental health.

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: We've never -- we've never really talked about it. We've never really talked about losing a mom at such a young age.

FOSTER: Ever since the couple moved out of Kensington Palace, which they shared with Prince William and Kate, speculation has been rife about what sort of parents they'll be.

BONNIE GREER, AUTHOR: There's a rumor about this, sort of, vegan baby and gender neutral. I think that's a little bit over the top. But she's certainly, probably, going to cook this baby's food.

FOSTER: Then there's the way the baby will be introduced to the world. The Sussexes aren't in the direct line of succession, so they're not expected to follow every formality.

RICHARD FITZWILLIAMS, ROYAL COMMENTATOR: You'd expect that they would observe the traditions that they think are appropriate.

GREER: They are minor royals. This baby has a lot more freedom than, say, George, has.

FOSTER: So don't expect any of this, when the baby is born. As a direct heir to the throne, Prince George's departure from hospital was a public event, watched on by the world's media. This time around, we don't even know where Meghan will be having her baby.

It could well be at home in, Windsor. Whilst George's birth announcement was placed on an easel, at Buckingham Palace, Prince Harry and Meghan are likely to announce their baby's arrival on Instagram. In the days that follow the birth, two cameras, at most, will be invited to Windsor, to capture the new family, on behalf of all media.

In the words of the palace, their Royal Highnesses have taken a personal decision to keep the plans around the arrival of their baby, private. The Duke and Duchess look forward to sharing the exciting news with everyone once they've had an opportunity to celebrate privately, as a new family.

With their wedding, Harry and Meghan showed the world they understand their place in public life, allowing the media in, when they think it's justified. But as they enter parenthood, they are making clear that access to their children, will be much more restricted. Max Foster, CNN, London.


MARQUARDT: Joining me now is CNN Royal Commentator, Victoria Arbiter, Victoria, thanks so much for joining us to break this all down.


MARQUARDT: So, Harry and Meghan are really breaking with tradition, not just his brother's, where we saw all three of his children and his wife, Kate, come out of the hospital, with their newborn, but also, Princess Diana did it with each of her sons. So, how big a deal is it that they're breaking with that tradition, and how is it being received, most notably, by the tough British tabloids?

ARBITER: Well, this became a tradition, but in sort of an unwitting fashion. The Duchess of Kent was the first royal to give birth in hospital. That was in 1970. Now, it's very difficult to sneak a royal in and out of hospital.

So, once we know they're in there, of course, the press are going to congregate. They do the obligatory photo and leaving. But Diana said, it was years after she left the hospital with baby William, but she said, she did the smile, she stood out there, did what was expected of her, but drove around the corner and burst into tears. Kate didn't look all that thrilled.


ARBITER: She too just did the obligatory picture.

MARQUARDT: This was hours after she gave birth.

ARBITER: Hours after. So, on the one hand, yes, there is disappointment in some quarters, but at the same time, I think, we, as a -- as a population, have to respect a mother's wishes. There is no requirement --


ARBITER: -- to Meghan, having to stand on those hospital steps. These are her personal choices. She doesn't feel comfortable being photo fabulous hours after giving birth.


ARBITER: So, yes, there will be disappointment, but as Max said, we will still get a picture and hopefully people will respect her wishes.

[20:45:07] MARQUARDT: Wasn't Harry known as being, of the family members, friendlier with the tabloids? But at the same time, obviously, he has to reconcile the fact that his mother was essentially killed after being pursued by paparazzi. So, how is he -- how is he balancing that?

ARBITER: Harry and William have long struggled. It's all about balance. That's the key word. And so, yes, sometimes, they'll let them in, but they'll never let them too close --


ARBITER: -- because they watched their mother, do this, a little bit.


ARBITER: Diana called the press in, when it suited her, and then she wants them to go away. You can't do that. The minute you let them in, it's kind of all over. So, I think, with this, with Harry and Meghan saying we're not going to pose outside the hospital, we're going to issue a photograph when we're good and ready.


ARBITER: They are saying right at the front, this is what's going to be acceptable. We're going to allow you to have photographs of our children as and when we believe it's suitable.


ARBITER: They don't want the banks of photographers that they were subjected to.

MARQUARDT: But, of course, some of the reaction from the public is, we pay your salaries. And we, the taxpayers, at least deserve to see -- to see the baby. Victoria, I want to ask you about a report from the Sunday Times, in the U.K., that there's possibly a move in the couple's future to Africa, which we know Harry loves and he's done a lot of work there. What do you know about that?

ARBITER: Well, there's a lot to digest in this article. The Sunday Times today are reporting that there are plans in place, behind the scenes, to potentially post Harry and Meghan to Africa within the next couple of years.

Now, they haven't been specific in terms of which country, in Africa, but the goal being, for them, to promote their work with the common wealth, to further their charitable endeavors, to have some private time, to promote brand Britain. Now, of course, people have jumped on this, as being William and Kate jealous of Harry and Meghan's popularity. That they've got this rift that needs sorting, so let's banish them to Africa. But the royal family, they're not petty like that.

The Queen is not a dictator. She's not going to exile Harry and Meghan somewhere where they don't choose to go.


ARBITER: I think what she's doing here, if this is true, and it's all the palace has even said, this is speculative at this point. The Queen, she and Prince Philip lived in Malta, for two years, shortly after their wedding. It was idyllic. It was the most normal time --

MARQUARDT: Right, right.

ARBITER: -- of their marriage. William and Kate, they lived in Anglesey, following their marriage, again, very private, very normal. For this couple who had such a whirlwind romance, to give them an opportunity to live in Africa, where they can be private, where they can be as normal as any royal could, in their position, there's a lot of pluses to that.

So, they're talking about it being in 2020. There are still a lot of -- a lot of things to consider. But, I don't think we need to look at this negatively. There's a lot of potential positive impact.

MARQUARDT: Should we read anything into the fact that Meghan was not at Easter services today, with the rest of the family?

ARBITER: Well, of course, there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there saying she's had the baby already. But no, I think if she's had the baby already, Harry would not have been at Easter service today. So, I think all we can read into it is, she's very, very pregnant. She's ready to have her baby and she's putting her feet up because it's due any day now.

MARQUARDT: Any thoughts on baby names?

ARBITER: Well, baby names? I've never been right on gender, but I'm going with girl. Rose was my first thought. Diana was solidified as England's rose when Elton John sang at her funeral. Doria, and Meghan's mother refers to her as flower.

Alice is a potential, as well. Alice was one of Queen Victoria's daughters. She really promoted women's rights and women's causes, Alice Walker, of course, a Pulitzer price-winner. But I think, Eleanor, now could be at the forefront. Eleanor of Aquitaine was one of the most influential queens in her time. Eleanor Roosevelt fought for political, social, racial justice in this country.

It works on both sides of the pond. Boys, they get a little trickier.


ARBITER: Alexander, perhaps, Philip, Arthur.

MARQUARDT: And very quickly, this is a huge business for British bookies, as well, isn't it?

ARBITER: Yes, yes, British bookies. This is a national pastime in the U.K. Some think it's a little tacky over here. But this is what the Brits do. They bet on names, they bet on due dates, they bet on potential --

MARQUARDT: Anything they can.

ARBITER: -- godparents, whatever goes.

MARQUARDT: All right. Victoria Arbiter, thank you so much.

ARBITER: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: I'm sure we'll come back to you in the next few days.

All right, well, coming up next, we have Jeanne Moos on what if FOX News gave President Trump the same treatment as it gave to President Obama.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS: Mr. President, you need to stop acting like a schoolyard bully.



MARQUARDT: And finally, this hour, what if FOX News gave President Trump the same treatment that it gave to President Obama? Here's Jeanne Moos.


HANNITY: Wave to the fake news media.

JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Trump and FOX News go together like love and marriage, an on-stage hug for Sean Hannity. Judge Jeanine Pirro gives the President, a little bow.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They've done an incredible job for us. Laura, I love your show. I watch it all the time.

MOOS: But lately, the marriage has shown a few teeny tiny cracks. What's with FOX News, tweeted President Trump. Triggered by the enthusiastic reception Bernie Sanders got, at that recent FOX News Town Hall.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Should we give huge tax breaks to billionaires?


MOOS: So weird to watch crazy Bernie on FOX News, President Trump tweeted, adding, and now we, we, he said, have Donna Brazile?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then our brand new FOX News Contributor, Donna Brazile.

MOOS: Sort of makes a die-hard FOX fan, long for the days when the network took aim at President Obama.

HANNITY: What is wrong with this president? How dumb is he?

MOOS: But what if FOX News covered Trump the way they covered Obama?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's kind of a celebrity president. He's kind of like Ryan Seacrest.

MOOS: Bashing Obama for the things Trump does.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he's not doing executive actions, he's having a golf course. It's like golf, Mr. President, you play a lot of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President seems almost obsessed with cable T.V. or am I wrong?

MOOS: It's a super cut described as darkly hilarious, compiled over a couple of months, by producer, Michael Lester, for the left-leaning video news outlet, Now This.

[20:55:04] MICHAEL LESTER, PRODUCER, NOW THIS: I just had so many instances of hypocrisy. That I had to just now start to put them into one video.

MOOS: Network personalities berating Obama from 2009 to 2015.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, everyone is laughing at us. You're like a schoolyard bully. No one's afraid of you. Putin sure as hell, isn't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe it is time you stop looking at a T.V. tuned to FOX, and look at (INAUDIBLE) I don't know, you.

MOOS: The height of hypocrisy, or maybe FOX News was just ahead of its time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a president who can never admit he's wrong.

MOOS: Who wears it better? Jeanne Moos, CNN.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're so insecure and vain, at the same time.

MOOS: New York.


MARQUARDT: And that will do it for me, on this Easter Sunday. I'm Alex Marquardt, wishing you a very happy Easter and Passover. Thanks so much for joining me today. Up next, watch back to back episodes of "FINDING JESUS" coming up right after a short break, here on CNN.