Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Classified Docs From Biden's Time As VP Discovered In A Private Office; Brazil's President Blames Predecessor For Encouraging Riots, Vows To Punish Pro-Bolsonaro Rioters For Storming Buildings; Husband Of Ana Walshe Arrested For Misleading Investigators. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired January 09, 2023 - 21:00   ET




ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Breaking News, tops the hour. It turns out the former President is not the only one with a classified documents problem.

The current President has one as well, stemming from his time, as Vice President. They were discovered last fall, in a private office, in Washington that he used, as part of his relationship, with the University of Pennsylvania, where he was an Honorary Professor, from 2017 to 2019.

Attorney General Garland has asked a U.S. Attorney, to investigate.

Republicans are reacting.

So far, the former President, and the Democratic former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has called this, quote, "A problem and a deep concern," end quote.

CNN's Evan Perez shares the byline of the story. He joins us now.

So, what more do you know about the documents that were found?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, we know that at least some of the documents were classified at a level as a TS/SCI, which is, stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information.

And this is sensitive information that comes from Intelligence sources, and that is designed to be kept, in secure locations, one of which presumably is not a office, in the Vice President's - what was then the Vice President's office, at the Penn Biden Center.

So, that's the reason why this has now been looked into, by the Justice Department, by the U.S. Attorney, John Lausch, in Chicago. He's a Trump appointee, who has been kept on doing various investigations. And now, he and the FBI are going to take a look at this. They're doing a review, to see, do a damage assessment, so to speak, which is a standard way of handling these types of things.

According to the White House, they're cooperating. They say that this was found, back in November, as the President's legal team was trying to close down this office, at the University of Pennsylvania. And as soon as they determined these documents, which were, they say, fewer than a dozen, they turned it over to the National Archives, which then asked the Justice Department to look into it.

COOPER: And now, a number of Republicans, and others, are making comparisons, to the former President's issues, with classified documents, and the search at Mar-a-Lago.

How does it compare? How is it different?

PEREZ: Well, there's some big differences, right? According to the Biden White House, they're saying there are fewer than a dozen documents.

In the Trump investigation, which is still an ongoing investigation, we have seen, from court documents that we're talking over 300 documents, including 92, that were at the highest level of classification. So, that's part of what is a big difference here.

Another difference is that the Archives, the National Archives, and the FBI, and the Justice Department, went around, with various rounds, with the Trump legal team, over a period of months, trying to get them to turn over the information, to turn over those documents. And the former President was refusing.

In the end, they carried out that extraordinary search, that we saw at Mar-a-Lago, because the Justice Department said that it found indications or evidence that people were moving boxes, out of this secure location that these documents were supposed to be held.

That's a vast difference from what the White House is describing happened here, which is that the President's legal team, found these documents, they say, they turned them over to the National Archives, the following day, Anderson.

COOPER: Evan Perez, appreciate it. Thanks.

President Biden is in Mexico, tonight, where he was asked about the story.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any comment on the documents, Sir?


COOPER: So, with that non-answer, let's go to CNN's Phil Mattingly.

So, while the President did not address this tonight, what is the White House saying, about these documents?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, I think we should probably get used to non-answers, in part because this is a White House, and a President that have really gone to great lengths, not to be seen, or not to have the perception, of trying to get involved in anything the Justice Department does. And that will certainly be the case here.

However, they did put out, an on-the-record statement that is very detailed, in its timeline. And that detail carries some intent behind it, implicitly, in the sense of just how sharply diverge it is, as Evan was laying out, from what the former President is dealing with, right now.

In that timeline, noting that these documents were discovered, as Evan noted, as this office was being closed out, a call was immediately placed, to the Counsel's Office.


That was the first time a source told me that President Biden became aware that these documents existed. Still does not know exactly what those documents entailed, up to this point.

The Counsel's Office reached out to the Archives. And, by the next morning, the Archives was at the Penn Center, picking up those documents.

Now, as this review goes on, White House officials say they are going to continue to cooperate. The President's lawyers have continued to cooperate.

Another critical difference here that they make clear is that these documents were never requested, they were never sought, and they were turned down for those. They were found. And they were immediately turned over. That's what the White House is focusing on, right now.

In terms of how much more we're going to hear from them, at this point, it seems like very little despite a very politically toxic issue, right here, Anderson.

COOPER: And what's the reaction, or has there been a reaction, from the former President?

MATTINGLY: I'm intrigued by the fact that you asked, "Has there been?"

Yes, absolutely, and very quickly, the President, going on social media, to post about this. Posting in part, "When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?"

To some degree, and you expect Republicans, as Evan was laying out, but also the former President, to talk about this repeatedly. And that has certainly been the case.

But in the President's statement, he kind of underscores one of the critical differences here. The reason why the FBI raid occurred is because their documents were not turned over, despite requests. Despite turning over some of the documents, some still remained at Mar-a-Lago.

That has not been the case at least as White House officials have laid things out, up to this point. But there's no question this underscores the reality here, that White House officials are keenly aware of. This is becoming a political issue, very quickly. Already has, to some degree. That is part of why that statement that was released by the Counsel's Office was so detailed. But it's something they're going to have to grapple with, in the weeks ahead, Anderson.

COOPER: Phil Mattingly, appreciate it.

We're joined now by CNN Legal Analyst, and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Elliot Williams; also CNN's Senior Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig; also with us, CNN Special Correspondent, Jamie Gangel, who did some of the reporting on this; and CNN's Senior Political Commentator, David Axelrod, former Senior Adviser to President Obama.

Elie, let's talk about just legally, is this - how big of a deal is this?

ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, AUTHOR, "HATCHET MAN": Well, it's potentially a very big deal, both for Joe Biden, and for Donald Trump.

Now, there's a lot we need to know, Anderson. And the details matter here. There could be a lot of differences, between the two scenarios.

Most importantly, did Joe Biden know, what was, the purpose? How did these documents get there? How many were there? Were they cooperative, or were they obstructive? On paper, those could make the difference, between something that is criminal, or not criminal. But we don't live on paper, nor do prosecutors.

And you have to look at this, I look at this, through a political lens, and a reality lens, which is, is Merrick Garland, who ultimately is going to have the say here who, is known for nothing more than - nothing, if not being averse, to politics? He wants nothing that appears to be political. Is he going to give his own boss, the person, who put him in the position, as Attorney General, a pass and, at the same time, bring a criminal charge, and try to lock up the person, who's running against his boss?

COOPER: He appointed a Trump-appointed prosecutor.


COOPER: Didn't he?

HONIG: He did. He kept on a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, from Illinois, who's sort of serving almost as a Special Counsel here. But ultimately, the end decision, the bottom line, "Do I indict or not," in both instances, is going to be Merrick Garland's call.

COOPER: David, what is your reaction? And as someone, who worked in the Obama-Biden administration, what do you recall about how that administration handled classified documents?


We all were very well-informed about how to handle documents. Everyone had safes, where classified information was stored. Even documents that weren't classified, we were lectured all the time about the handling of those, and what we could and couldn't take with us, when we left the White House.

So, I don't know how exactly this happened. I mean, it sounds, in the telling, a lot more benign than what we know of what happened, with President Trump, in that the Biden folks found these documents, and immediately notified authorities, that they had them.

But in the mishmash of today's politics, and whataboutism, I'm sure that this will become fodder, for those, who want to blunt the threat to Donald Trump.

COOPER: Elliot, I mean, the Justice - so the National Archives referred the matter to the DOJ, for further investigation. What questions need to be answered, right now? I mean, Elie covered some of them.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, and I think it all gets down to intent, Anderson. Look, someone who accidentally commits an offense, for the most part, and for most crimes, is not and should not be charged with the crime.

Let's go back to former President Trump. If he truly was inadvertent, in the retention of these documents, he shouldn't be charged, with a crime, either.

The problem for the former President's that there's a growing body of evidence that number one, he or others, around him, sought to obstruct an investigation, into the retention of documents. Or, number two, aided in the retention of those documents.

So, what the Justice Department needs to look into is, number one, who might have touched or been around or known about the documents. Number two, why did they get there, in the first place? And how, and number three, was some of this accidental?


We all, and this is picking up on David's point, as former members of an administration, or government employees, are given instruction, as to how to retain documents, what to do with them when they're in our care. But certainly, mistakes happen. And if they do, they shouldn't be charged as crimes.

But again, once - we have to find out more, as to sort of what went behind all of this, before any charging decision, or knowing how something of a charge can be made.

COOPER: Jamie, I mean, at this stage, how big an issue, do you think, this could become, for the Biden administration? Obviously, Republicans, we've heard from Republicans, on Capitol Hill, who have been commenting about this.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, this is no question a political gift, to Donald Trump, and a political gift, to the Republicans, up on the Hill. And they are going to take it and run with it.

I just want to go back to something that David Axelrod said. The mishmash of politics, I think there's going to be more mash than mish here. But I spoke to a source, who is--

COOPER: Which is worse?

GANGEL: I'm not sure. We will see.

It's - but I spoke to a source very familiar with how the National Archives has worked, with situations, like this, in the past. And this is not a political person. This is a professional person.

And they pointed out, "You know what the reality is? This happens. Former high level officials, I know, former President of the United States, a former Director of the CIA, who I've known for years, have told me, they have found something, in their homes, afterwards. It can be an honest mistake."

So, to Elliot's point, what was the intent to, you know, there does not seem to be obstruction here. They couldn't have been more cooperative.

I am told that if there was not the Mar-a-Lago documents situation, that the National Archives might very well not have referred this, to the Justice Department. But they felt they had to, simply because of what was going on, with Donald Trump.

COOPER: So Elie, I mean, how long does an investigation like this go on for?

HONIG: I think you need to move quickly here, I think, in both instances. I mean, we're not that far away, from the 2024 campaign, coming into focus here. But I think we need quick answers.

Look, Merrick Garland, I've been critical, I'll remain critical, he's moved very slow. We're two years out, from January 6. We're more than a year out from the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents, sort of coming to the attention of the Archives. We can't let this linger. I think we need clear answers.

And I think that's why Merrick Garland has deputized, in one case, a Special Counsel, and the other case, this Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, A, to give himself a little bit of political cover, but B, because you need people who are focused on getting us answers, quickly.

COOPER: David, I mean, legal reasons, and sort of ethical reasons, why President Biden wouldn't comment. But I mean, how long can the President not make some sort of comment about this?


AXELROD: No, I think he'll be pressed on this. And he'll have to - he'll have to speak to it.

And I thought Elie made a really good point, earlier. I think Merrick Garland prides himself, on making decisions, based on the law, and that's who he is. But you can't isolate yourself, from the political environment.

And should they move on Trump, even though the circumstances appear to be much different? You know the reaction that it's going to engender that there are two standards here. So, whatever Biden says, this changes the discussion, I think, and it probably changes the decision- making, in the Justice Department.

COOPER: Yes. I mean, Elliot, how does it change the decision, or complicate the Special Counsel's investigation, of the former President?

WILLIAMS: Well, look, Anderson, there's two answers to that. Someone ought to be charged with a crime, if the facts and the law indicate that a conviction could be sustained, in front of a jury, right?

The Justice Department, theoretically operates, independent of politics. The simple fact is we live in the real world, right? And, in the real world, there are political implications to actions.

And as everyone, on this panel, has said, today, there's going to be political questions. You can already see Jim Jordan, the Incoming Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, salivating over the prospect of saying that Donald Trump was targeted, and how political all the process was. Even setting aside the fact that the two scenarios, one, the former President, and the current President, are just different, based on the information that's available, on the record, right now.

So, the simple fact is the Justice Department needs to be prepared, to answer the political question, even if it doesn't, or shouldn't weigh into the question of guilt or innocence.

COOPER: Elliot Williams, Elie Honig, Jamie Gangel, David Axelrod, thank you.

Coming up next, whether it's a question of mish or mash, as Jamie said, a live report, on reaction, tonight, from lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle. And more on the impact this could have, on the President, now that Republicans are in charge of oversight, in the House.


And later, a live report, from Brazil, where hundreds have now been arrested. The fallout is spreading, from yesterday's attack, on the country's seat of government, by supporters, of its defeated President.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: More now on tonight's Breaking News, that classified documents, from President Biden's time, as Vice President, were discovered, last fall, in a private office that he used, until the start of the 2020 campaign.

As we mentioned before the break, House Republicans have already promised, to use their new oversight power, to investigate the President. They've started weighing in and, just a short time ago, so did some Democrats, on the House Intelligence Committee.

CNN's Manu Raju joins us, now, from the Capitol.

I know you spoke to Speaker McCarthy. What did he tell you?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I asked him about these classified documents being discovered. And he seemed to dismiss the suggestion that they were only recently discovered. And he said, "Oh, really? It took this long to find these documents," he said sarcastically.

And I asked him if he had similar concerns, with Donald Trump, and all those documents that were found in Mar-a-Lago. And he sidestepped that question, saying that it was the Democrats, who over the head, played their hands, on that issue, given that now that these classified documents were found, with President Biden.

Now, he was also asked whether or not there should be any investigation, into this matter. And he didn't say directly. But then he said that there's a difference, between Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Donald Trump was only in political office, for one term. Joe Biden was in for 40 years.


Now, others went further, and suggested there could be some sort of investigation. James Comer, who is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told me that he plans to send a letter, to the National Archives, which he oversees, to try to understand those documents that apparently were - may have been mishandled.

And I also talked to Jim Jordan, who is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Now, he would not say whether or not he plans to press ahead, and with any investigation. But he did say, "Wouldn't it be nice, if the country would have known that there were classified documents, before the midterm elections," since apparently, these were discovered on November 2nd, Anderson.

COOPER: And what are Democrats now saying?

RAJU: Well, not every Democrat is actually quick to rush to defend Joe Biden.

In fact, Adam Schiff, who was the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, under the Democratic control of Congress, told me that "Obviously if there are classified documents anywhere they shouldn't be that's a problem and a deep concern." He went on to say he's still to learn the facts of the situation.

And that's a similar thing that Jim Himes, who is also a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he told me this.


REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Look, classified information needs to stay in secure spaces. So, we'll wait to see the facts. But, you know, classified information needs to be in secure spaces.


RAJU: Now, the House Oversight Committee's Ranking Member, Jamie Raskin, did put out a statement, saying that the President appears to have taken quote, "Immediate and proper action to notify the National Archives." He also said he has, quote, "Confidence that the Attorney General took the appropriate steps" to make sure that there was careful review.

So, we're seeing some defense, from the Democrats, about the President's actions. But still tonight, Anderson, a lot of people learning about the situation, but it's not the last thing, Congress will ask about it, as Republicans plan to press ahead, on this.

COOPER: Evan Perez (ph), appreciate it. Thank you.

Perspective now, from CNN Chief Political Correspondent, and "STATE OF THE UNION" Co-anchor, Dana Bash; CNN Political Commentator, Scott Jennings, who served as Special Assistant to the President, in the George W. Bush administration; also, Audie Cornish, Host of CNN's "The Assignment" podcast.

Dana, from your sources, what are you hearing, on Capitol Hill, tonight?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN CO-ANCHOR, STATE OF THE UNION: Well, a lot of Democrats keeping their powder dry, kind of like what you heard, from Congressman Himes of Connecticut, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Not so much about the process that the Biden White House, I guess it was, or his attorney, took, in returning the documents, but the question of why they were there in the first place, because it is true that you're not supposed to take classified documents.

And there could be a lot of explanations for it. But, right now, the question is why. And they don't - we don't know the answer. But that's one thing. But, the real question, right now, is the political one, which I know you were talking about with the panel beforehand.

And there's an old adage, "If you're explaining, you're losing." And I'm not so sure you can say that this applies. But it's pretty close, right now, when you're talking about something, as heightened, and as potentially toxic, as this issue is, because of what happened, in Mar- a-Lago. They are not the same. But when it comes to politics, you can bet we're going to hear a lot of trying to conflate the two. COOPER: Yes. I mean, Audie, does it change, the calculus, for Republicans, looking for, to do oversight, of the Biden administration, in Congress? It obviously is another thing that they can point to.


One of the things that happened, in the negotiation, for speakership for Kevin McCarthy, is the idea that the hardliners could have a subcommittee that would focus on the weaponization of the federal government. It's going to investigate a number of Intelligence agencies. But it also has the IRS on that list. It has the FBI on this list.

So, if anything, I think it's just going to kind of coalesce, around an idea that is kind of calcified, within this part, of the Republican Party, that the federal government has been weaponized, against conservatives and Republican politicians. And any chance they have to what they think will be exposed that in some way they're going to take.

One thing, I just want to add, it will be interesting to see if the media has learned anything, from the situation, with the Justice Department, and Hillary Clinton's emails, in terms of trying to kind of create, if not false equivalency, trying to compare things so much that you sort of confuse the audience about what's going on, and why. It'll be interesting to see sort of what lessons we've taken away, from that period, and how we'll apply to this next couple of months.

COOPER: Scott, how do you see this being handled, by Republicans, in Capitol Hill?

SCOTT JENNINGS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think every Republican in the Capitol is feeling like the Michael Scott Paper Company, sauntering back into Dunder Mifflin, tonight. Well, well, well, how the turntables!

I mean, Dana hit it exactly right. This is - the political usefulness, of this, for the Republicans, as people attack Donald Trump, about his issues? I get it. And they're not the same. And yes, there'll be conflation here. But the political usefulness of this cannot be underscored, cannot be overstated enough.

I mean to give Republicans, this talking point, for the rest of their natural lives, almost exonerates Trump, in terms of debates, and what comes up. I mean, if this ever comes up, and somebody brings it up, you're always going to have this retort.

So, there's a lot of Republicans - by the way?

BASH: Well?

[21:25:00] JENNINGS: Everybody in politics is laughing their rear end off, tonight that this happened to Joe Biden, given how strident, his commentary was, in attacking Donald Trump, about this, in the first place. So, yes, it's a big deal, politically.

BASH: Yes--

COOPER: Scott, I haven't seen you quite so chipper, in quite a while!

JENNINGS: Oh, I'm perfectly - I'm perfectly happy for the Justice Department, to investigate this, and get to the bottom of both cases. I think classified material ought to be taken care of.

And I think people, who've been all over Donald Trump, about this, ought to have the wherewithal, to be all over Joe Biden, about it too.

CORNISH: One thing--

BASH: I know Scott is talking about--


BASH: Go ahead, Audie.

CORNISH: Oh, I was going to say, one thing to keep in mind, though, is the former President is in trouble, for claiming that he would have - that he turned in documents--

BASH: Exactly.

CORNISH: --that he did not, ignoring subpoenas. Some of his lawyers are accused of saying that they signed off on certifying that they had documents that they didn't, or had documents that, and it turned out there were more documents.

So, some of this is about how you react to something. Do you react with obstruction? Do you react by stiff-arming federal agencies? That's something that I think has to be a part of this conversation, because it's not just about where are random boxes.

COOPER: But Dana, to Scott's point, in a debate, those details are easy to brush over, and the headline is, "It's the same thing. Look, this guy did it too."

BASH: They are easy to brush over. And that's where I go back to the potential pitfall, for Joe Biden, if you're explaining you're losing. However, it really doesn't. And we'll see where this goes. And we'll see where the Mar-a-Lago investigation goes. Now, both are before the Department of Justice.

It is very, very different. And if Joe Biden, is able to explain it, in a, cogent way, if he gets to that point, if they're, on a debate stage? Then it should be a no-brainer, for people, to understand the difference, because of what Audie said, which is what I was going to mention. It's just not the same when it comes to obstruction, which seems to be the bigger issue here. People, they're not supposed to take classified documents. Sometimes, it happens by accident. But the question is, when you are told about it, or when you learn about it, how do you deal with it? And these two, a President, and former President, dealt with it in very, very different ways, in these two situations.

COOPER: And Scott, we've already seen the former President responding to this, on social media, asking when the FBI will perhaps raid the White House. I mean, obviously, he's going to make this an issue, as much as he can.

JENNINGS: Yes. And another question Republicans are going to ask about this, is this was discovered, I think, the day before the election. We're just now finding out about it, after the election, a couple of months later. Why?

I mean, if I were a Jamie Comer, the Congressman, who runs the Oversight Committee, that'd be one of the first questions I have, is why is it when something happens to Joe Biden, it's able to hold, inside these agencies, for a couple of months? When something happens to Donald Trump, we know about it within five minutes?

And that is really getting to the core of what a lot of Republicans are asking. Why do things that happen to Trump, or any other Republican, tend to be weaponized instantly? And things that happen to Democrats, or the Democrats do, magically, time passes? I think it's a fair question, and one you're going to hear Trump, and his allies, and the Republicans in Congress, ask.

COOPER: But isn't it more noticeable when your resort is actually raided by the FBI, as opposed to when the National Archives is actually called out by your attorneys?

CORNISH: And when you ignore subpoena for months, I mean?

JENNINGS: Yes, of course.

CORNISH: That's not instant. That's many, many months.

JENNINGS: Of course. But if I were in Donald Trump's position?


JENNINGS: And I'm not. And you know, where I stand on it--

COOPER: Yes, I know.

JENNINGS: --and for the nomination, in 2024.

But if I were in his position, I would say "Yes, it is more noticeable when my house is raided." Why wasn't it noticed that these documents were sitting in a shoebox, with some old Reader's Digest, and lace doilies, at Donald Trump - or at Joe Biden's office, like why didn't somebody know about that?

I mean, that again, there is an every time somebody has a retort on this, there is a political answer for it. It's pretty easy.


JENNINGS: And most people aren't going to be into the weeds on this thing. They're going to say, "Yes, he has a point."

COOPER: Yes. Scott Jennings, Dana Bash, Audie Cornish, appreciate it.

Up next, the latest on those supporters, of Brazil's ousted president, who attacked the country's Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidential palace, all on the same day, and parallels the January 6th, right here, ahead.



COOPER: Just two days, after the second anniversary, of the attack, on Congress, by a violent mob, of the losing candidate's supporters, in Brazil, supporters of the losing President, stormed his Legislature, and Supreme Court, and Presidential Palace.

President Biden, today, condemned the attack.

The losing candidate, Jair Bolsonaro says he's currently hospitalized, in Florida.

The newly-elected Brazilian legislator, today, called for his extradition, to answer for what happened.

CNN's Isa Soares reports.



ISA SOARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A stunning attack, on Brazil's seat of power, as thousands of supporters of former far-right President, Jair Bolsonaro, broke through security cordons, in Brasilia, roaming presidential building corridors, vandalizing Congress, smashing windows, stealing presidential documents, and destroying invaluable works of art.


SOARES (voice-over): Simply running riot, through Brazil's halls of power.


SOARES (voice-over): In scenes, eerily similar, to the Insurrection, in the U.S. Capitol, two years ago.


SOARES (voice-over): One week earlier, the scenes were of democratic triumph, as Bolsonaro's left-when rival, Lula da Silva, was inaugurated, as the new Brazilian President, following a tight election result.

Bolsonaro never explicitly conceded, and neither did his most ardent followers.


SOARES (voice-over): "This - this is my hero. I'm at his home, our home, our home," a Bolsonaro supporter says, from inside the Presidential palace.



SOARES (voice-over): Protesters dressed in the colors of the Brazilian flag, now a symbol, of Bolsonaro's far-right movement, unfurled banners, from the Congressional building rooftop, demanding the result of Brazil's most fraught election, in a generation, be overturned.

More than a 1,000 arrests were made, after security forces used tear gas, and stun grenades, to regain control of the Congressional building, the Supreme Court, and Presidential palace. But by the time they did, the damage had already been done.

The President's Chief of Communications showed destruction, inside his own office.

PAULO PIMENTA, PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF COMMUNICATIONS (through translator): It's unbelievable what was done in the palace. Look at the state of the rooms, equipment, computers. Look at this.

SOARES (voice-over): World leaders condemned the attack as an assault on democracy.

Brazil's new President pinned the blame, on his predecessor, accusing him of encouraging rioters, through social media, from Florida. He promised no stone will be left unturned, vowing to find those responsible.

PRESIDENT LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZIL (through translator): We will find out the financiers, and they will pay with the force of the law, for this irresponsible gesture, this anti-democratic gesture, of vandals and fascists.

SOARES (voice-over): Bolsonaro denounced the actions, of his supporters, from the U.S., where he traveled, after the election.


SOARES (voice-over): The former President, already facing, at least four Supreme Court investigations, the later scenes will only add to further calls at home (ph), into Bolsonaro's influence, on his base, a conservative firebrand politician, who, for years, has been taking cues, from the Trump playbook, pushing election fraud conspiracies, and casting doubt, on the integrity of the electoral system.


COOPER: And Isa Soares joins us now, from Brasilia, Brazil's capital.

What happens to Bolsonaro now?

SOARES: Well, that is a big question. You know, what, we've hearing behind closed doors, is that perhaps we'll be looking at further investigations is something, of course, that we've been hearing, from several senators.

But speaking - hearing from the Justice Minister today, Anderson, I don't think we're there yet. He said that Minister Dino said that basically Bolsonaro bears political responsibility, for what unfolded here, in the three branches of power, in Brasilia. But he said, he has no legal grounds, as of yet, to investigate him, so as of yet, is very critical, right now.

But what he did lay out, very clearly, you heard there in that piece, very much the rhetoric that we've been hearing, from Bolsonaro, for years, denying the elections, of throwing into doubt, the electoral system, in Brazil, questioning the Supreme Court. He said that was very much part of what fueled and what stoke the protests, here, on Sunday.

And I think there's something that he said that will resonate, with those, in the U.S., given everything that happened the last two years, in the Insurrection. I'm just going to read it out. He said, "Words have power and those words turned into hate, which turned into destruction. It is a political responsibility," with the aim, he said, "of a coup d'etat."

So, we are seeing, we start hearing calls, here, in Brazil, from, of course, member of Congress, asking for Bolsonaro, to be extradited. But as you all know, the U.S. State Department has not received any official extradition request, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes. Isa Soares, appreciate it. Thank you.

A Mother of three has been missing, since New Year's Day. Her husband's now under arrest, for allegedly misleading Police. Developments, coming up.



COOPER: Ana Walshe has been missing, for eight days.

Tonight, we learned investigators are looking for remains, digging through trash, at a transfer station, north of Boston. Now, earlier today, investigators revealed that a bloody knife was found, in the basement, of the Walshe home.

Her husband has not been named a suspect. But he has been arrested, in connection with the case.

CNN's Randi Kaye has details.


WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE, COHASSET POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well it's not normal that she's missing. So, we automatically feel that she's in danger by the mere fact that she's missing.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR/CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): 39-year-old Ana Walshe hasn't been seen, since New Year's Day. That's when Police say a family member told them, she left for Boston's Logan Airport, by 5 AM, bound for D.C., where she works in real estate.

QUIGLEY: The cell phone has been off, since around the 1st of the year. Detectives are working the electronic forensics.

Debit cards, or your credit cards, and none of these things have been active, since the 1st of the year.

KAYE (voice-over): Police say, both her husband, and her employer, reported her missing, on Wednesday, January 4th. They say there is no record of her, on a flight, to D.C., on any airline. And it's unclear, if she ever took a rideshare. Searches of the woods and surrounding areas near their home turned up nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She would not by her own choice go a day without speaking to her husband or children, like that's very out of character.

KAYE (voice-over): Days after her disappearance, a bizarre twist. Police now say her husband, who they thought had been cooperating, misled investigators.

Two law enforcement sources, briefed on the investigation, tell CNN's John Miller that investigators discovered Brian Walshe did internet searches, looking for how to dispose of a 115-pound woman's body, and how to dismember a body. That knowledge led Police to get a search warrant, for the family's home, which culminated in Brian Walshe's arrest, yesterday, for allegedly misleading investigators.

At his arraignment, in court, this morning, he pleaded not guilty. But prosecutors shared disturbing details, about evidence, they say, Police found, during the search of the couple's home.

LYNN BELAND, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NORFOLK DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: During that time they found blood in the basement. Blood was found in the basement area, as well as a knife, which also contained some blood.

KAYE (voice-over): Prosecutors also listed cleaning supplies, Brian Walshe, allegedly bought, in the hours, after his wife's disappearance.

BELAND: He's on surveillance, at that time, purchasing about $450 worth of cleaning supplies. That would include mops, bucket, tarps, Tyveks, drop cloths, as well as various kinds of tape.


KAYE (voice-over): According to court documents, Brian Walshe had said, he was running errands, for his mother, on the afternoon of January 1st.

But court documents, obtained by CNN, show, on January 7th, investigators reviewed surveillance video, from the two stores, he said, he'd visited, for his mom. Police say they did not see him, on the video, and found no evidence, he went to those stores.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brian, what do you want the public, to know about this case?

KAYE (voice-over): His whereabouts that day are important, given that's the day his wife disappeared.

Court documents show investigators later discovered surveillance video, of him, at a Home Depot, in Rockland, Massachusetts, wearing a black surgical mask, blue surgical gloves, and making a cash purchase.

Court records show investigators believe Brian Walshe, tried to mislead investigators, and purposely gave them false information, so they would travel far away, in an attempt to corroborate his story.

Randi Kaye, CNN.


COOPER: CNN's Chief Law Enforcement & Intelligence Analyst, John Miller, has been getting a lot of this new reporting for us. He's a former NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence & Counterterrorism. He joins us now.

I mean, some of the details that you first reported, I mean, he was Googling how to dispose of 115-pound woman's body?

JOHN MILLER, FORMER NYPD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INTELLIGENCE & COUNTERTERRORISM, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT & INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Yes. And I mean, you would think that that's pretty poor tradecraft, if you're planning to cover up a crime.

But I would also say having been involved, in actually very similar investigations, when people think they erase their search history, or they delete things, there are forensic ways to find things that people think are long gone.

So, it's not clear, if efforts were taken, to cover electronic tracks or not. But what we do know is from the court filings is allegedly, he is not where he said, he was, when they went back through those places, and reviewed the video. He is where he never said he was, buying cleaning supplies, to the tune of $450. And drop cloths that you would use to spread out to--

COOPER: Right. MILLER: --you know to--

COOPER: Yes, it doesn't look good.

MILLER: It's not a good look, for somebody, who is the person, reporting somebody missing, after four days.

COOPER: So, when someone gets - you know, he's charged with misleading investigators. Obviously, they clearly are looking into more. Is the reason to charge somebody initially with that just to get them in custody, so they're not trying to run away--

MILLER: Well that's--

COOPER: --or do something else?

MILLER: So, that's right. That's a holding charge. It's something that actually has a potential 10-year sentence. So, it's a serious charge in Massachusetts, because they understand it's about influencing the cover-up of a crime.

But you have a layered story here. Here's an individual, who is currently the husband, awaiting sentence, in an art fraud, involving Andy Warhol paintings and others that were sold fraudulently. They turned out to be copies. He pled guilty. The complaint outlines that his wife was aware of things going on there.

If he were to be released, on the misleading Police charged, the U.S. Marshals would probably come in and violate his probation--

COOPER: I see.

MILLER: --awaiting sentence, because you're not supposed to get arrested.

But the real bull's eye here, Anderson, is what's happening up at that Peabody, Massachusetts transfer station, where they have mapped out the grid, of where his trash went, where the trash, where they put the crime scene tape around the place, where his mom lives, and that trash went, and isolated the dates. They've targeted those spots, and they're going to be looking there.


MILLER: So, we could have developments, over the next couple of days.

COOPER: Yes. John Miller, really, incredible details, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Coming up, Bills Safety, Damar Hamlin, back in Buffalo, getting treatment, at a hospital, the latest good news, on his health, next.



COOPER: Buffalo Bills Safety, Damar Hamlin, is back in Buffalo, and at a hospital there with, he says, "A lot of love on my heart."

His amazing recovery continues exactly one week after a blow to the chest area, during a Monday Night Football game, in Cincinnati, sent him into cardiac arrest. His heart basically just stopped. He had to be resuscitated, on the field.

Hamlin tweeted, this photo, Sunday, just before game time, of himself, and his parents, about to watch it, from the hospital, in Cincinnati. Hamlin there, making the sign of a heart. It was an emotional game, in part because the Bills scored a touchdown, the kick returned to open the game.

Doctors say that Hamlin is recovering faster than they had expected.

I'm joined now by our Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

So, they say he's recovering faster than expected. Here's how his doctors described one of his reactions, during last night's game.


DR. TIMOTHY PRITTS, SURGEON WHO TREATED DAMAR HAMLIN: He watched the game on yesterday. When the opening kickoff was run back, he jumped up and down, got out of his chair, set, I think, every alarm off in the ICU, in the process. But he was fine. It was just an appropriate reaction to a very exciting play.


COOPER: So what do you make of his progress, Sanjay?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it is pretty remarkable, there's no question.

I will say, it's interesting I've been talking to lots of people who are cardiologists that take care of people with sudden cardiac arrests. And, there's not a lot of data on a 24-year-old professional athlete, who goes through something like this. So, if you look at the data for in-hospitalization cardiac arrests, out-of-hospitalization cardiac arrests, I mean, the numbers can be very different.

He had a cardiac arrest outside the hospital. But essentially, it was like being in a hospital, for him, because he had such quick care. Within seconds, as you remember, Anderson, they were assessing him, able to restore his heart rhythm on the field. So, it's pretty fast.

And also the fact that he was in critical condition, still, listed in critical condition, as of yesterday, but was able to be transferred today? That is also really fast as well.

But again, there's not - there's just not a lot, to compare him to, in this regard.

COOPER: Doctors have said it's too early to know exactly what caused the cardiac arrest. How important is it to try to figure that out? And are there tests that can find that? [21:55:00]

GUPTA: Yes, I think it's pretty important, certainly, because I think the next question that's going to come out of this, and I think it's way too early to try and answer that is, is this somebody that could potentially play again? I'm sure he wants to. And maybe that's the sort of trajectory they're on.

But they got to figure - I mean, they should try and figure out what led to this, so as to have some sense of comfort that it's not likely to happen, again, or that they can address the underlying cause.

Was it some sort of underlying electrical problem at the heart? Sometimes, that happens. Is it a congenital thing, something that he's had his whole life but didn't really know about? Is it something else that like - that made him more likely to develop this sort of problem?

They are probably investigating this. They do that through electrical tests of the heart, echocardiograms. They may do things even like genetic testing, all these sorts of things.

They may not ultimately have an answer. They may not say, "Hey, look, this is definitively the cause of this." And I think if that's the case, then they're going to have to have that discussion and figure out, what does that mean, then going forward?

Because it happened to him once, is it more likely to happen again? For example, people who've had concussions, if you've had one concussion, you are then more likely to have a second. Is that a similar scenario here? We don't know. Because we still don't know the underlying cause. So, I think that they're going to work to try and best they can figure out what happened here.

COOPER: Yes. Sanjay, appreciate it. Thanks so much.

The news continues. "CNN TONIGHT" with John Berman is next, right after a short break.