Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Officers Who Defended Capitol Sue to Stop DOJ's New $1.8 B Fund; Capitol Rioters, Election Deniers Celebrate DOJ's New $1.8 B "Anti-Weaponization" fund; Interview with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY); Trump, Netanyahu Diverge on Iran War's Future in Tense Phone Call; NYT Reports U.S. Wanted Ex-Iranian President in Power, Then He Was Injured in War; U.S. Doctor With Ebola in Isolation, Receiving Monoclonal Antibody Treatment in Berlin; WHO Says Ebola Outbreak Presents High Risk at National and Regional Level but Not Globally; Hearing on President's Reflecting Pool Renovations Set for Tomorrow. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired May 20, 2026 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: ... this was one of the most secretive private companies in history. Nothing's really known about its board, its profits, how it does business. Today we're learning more, though, because of this possible IPO.

Last year, they say SpaceX brought in $18.7 billion in revenue. That's stunning but so is this that they still lost nearly $5 billion on that. But as we said expected to be the biggest IPO in history.

And on one final note earlier on the program, we discussed Trumps IRS settlement. And just to be clear, the settlement refers to past tax returns not future ones. Thanks for joining us, Anderson starts now.

[20:00:37]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening from the Newsroom, keeping them honest tonight. The first known legal challenge to the Presidents so-called anti-weaponization fund, what many Democrats, certainly on Capitol Hill, are calling a slush fund. The challenge is being brought by two police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6th. One of those officers, Harry Dunn, joins us shortly.

First, though, I want to play you something that the President said on the subject today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It was the most violent thing I've ever seen in politics, what they did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The most violent thing I've ever seen in politics, he says. Now, if he were saying that about the attack on the Capitol on police officers, that might be true after all, take a look at this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(A VIDEO OF RIOT ON JANUARY 6TH.)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That is D.C. Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges on January 6th, being crushed in a doorway by insurrectionists. He was pinned in a revolving door by the mob, one of whom was using a police riot shield as a weapon. Someone shouting at him, "you will die on your knees."

The man with the shield trying to crush officer Hodges is named Patrick McCaughey III. He was convicted and sentenced by a Trump appointed judge, no less, to seven-and-a-half years in prison for his role in the violent assault, which left more than 140 officers injured.

Keeping them honest, the President was not talking about that violence, and that man has gotten out. He's not proposing a fund for officer Hodges for the weaponization of lies by the President that drove protesters and emboldened violence like this. No, the most violent thing ever seen in politics for this President was somehow what was done to Patrick McCaughey, whom he pardoned, and others who were charged, put on trial, had lawyers representing them, and were convicted in the same criminal justice system as everyone else.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The anti-weaponization of people, I mean, people were destroyed. They went to jail; their families were ruined. They committed suicide. You know, all the Biden administration and the Obama administration, both of them, I mean, the Obama administration started it. The Biden administration was horrible in terms of what they've done to people is incredible.

And we're getting, we're reimbursing those people for their legal fees and for their costs and for anybody involved. But they destroyed people, people committing -- I read the other day a person committed suicide over it. They went, you know, it was the most violent thing I've ever seen in politics, what they did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Again, he's not talking about people killed, put in jail during, the civil rights movement. It's not talking about those people, not people who were standing up for the constitution. He's talking about people who attacked law officers on the Capitol on January 6th.

The President of United States seems to be saying that grand jury indictments, followed by trials, followed by sentencing, some of it overseen by Trump appointed federal judges, are the real acts of violence here, and the most violent thing ever in politics.

If you believe the President, another act of real violence could have easily been the prosecution of his 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. He was charged, pleaded guilty to and sentenced to seven- and-a-half years in prison for conspiracy against the United States and conspiring, conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The charges were brought by President Trump's own Justice Department at the time, though admittedly it was not as much under his thumb as it is now.

The President has set the stage for these violent insurrectionists or white-collar convicts like Paul Manafort and others to collect from the nearly $1.8 billion fund created in the settlement of his lawsuit against the IRS, a $10 billion lawsuit against American taxpayers who are going to foot that bill against the IRS.

And as we reported last night, his acting attorney general and, of course, former criminal defense attorney Todd Blanche would not even say that people who attacked law enforcement would be barred from getting paid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund.

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, as it makes plain, anybody --

HOLLEN: -- just let me know if they're eligible for the fund.

BLANCHE: As was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were victim of --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So yes, they are eligible. He didn't rule it out when asked by Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen yesterday. And tonight, CNN's Paula Reid asked him again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You're the nation's top law enforcement official right now. Would you be okay with people who were convicted of hurting police, getting taxpayer money?

[20:05:09]

BLANCHE: Just to be clear, people that hurt police get money all the time, okay. There's a process where if you are -- if you believe you have your rights violated, you can you can apply for funds, you can sue, you can file a claim, you can go to court. And some of those cases, the state, the government, the federal government settles those cases.

It's abhorrent to ever, ever touch a law enforcement officer, which is why anytime anybody does that and it's a federal officer will prosecute them. But that's a completely different question with whether an individual is allowed to apply for a claim, whether they'll get a claim, it depends.

I can't, it's not, it would not be appropriate for me to talk about absolutes. Like, absolutely not, under no circumstances. I mean, we can talk about hypotheticals until we're blue in the face, but, that really wouldn't be fruitful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: He was saying anyone who federally attacked a federal law enforcement would be prosecuted. They were and the President pardoned them and brags about it. So again, the money will not be off limits to violent offenders. The acting attorney general did say that it will be up to the funds' five-panel members whom he will select. He also said the President, "does not stand for assaulting law enforcement."

Keeping them honest, again, the President pardoned or commuted the sentences of everyone who did. Senator Van Hollen today said he's offering legislation to prevent January 6th criminals from getting money from the fund.

A Pennsylvania Republican Congressman, Brian Fitzpatrick, is trying to legislate against an entirely and as we mentioned, two January 6th police officers are suing to block the fund, Daniel Hodges who you saw pinned in that doorway, and Harry Dunn, who described what he saw that day to the House January 6th Committee, and I'm going to play it because what happened matters. And there's a whole lot of people trying to rewrite the history and books on news channels and in the halls of power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY DUNN, CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: I was stunned by what I saw and what seemed like a sea of people. Capitol police officers and metropolitan police officers, MPD were engaged in desperate hand-to- hand fighting with rioters across the West Lawn.

Until then, I had never seen anyone physically assault Capitol police or MPD, let alone witness mass assaults being perpetrated on law enforcement officers.

I witnessed the rioters using all kinds of weapons against officers, including flagpoles, metal bike racks that they had torn apart, and various kind of projectiles. Officers were being bloodied in the fighting. Many were screaming and many were blinded and coughing from chemical irritants being sprayed in their faces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The truth gets trampled on a lot these days, but it does still matter. That's a witness to the violence, describing what the perpetrators of that violence did to him and his fellow officers, perpetrators whom the President pardoned or gave sentence commutations to on his first day in office. Now, there was a brief moment after the attack. You may not remember this, with the President because it didn't last long, when the President seemed unsure how to reinvent what happened. And on January 13th, he did for a moment grudgingly talk about attackers being brought to justice. Take a quick look, because it didn't last long.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Whether you are on the right or on the left, a Democrat or a Republican, there is never a justification for violence. No excuses, no exceptions, America is a nation of laws. Those who engaged in the attacks last week will be brought to justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was on teleprompter. Harry Dunn, who has since left the Capitol Police, joins me now. He's also a democrat running for Congress in Maryland. Officer Dunn, I appreciate you being with us. I want to play a bit more of what the acting attorney general, Blanche, told Paula Reid about the prospect of payouts to people who assaulted police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: One of the factors the commissioners have to consider is what the claimant did, the claimants conduct, okay. So, in the hypothetical you just described, the claimant would have to say, I assaulted a cop and I want money. So, whether the commissioners will give that person money, that that claimant, it's up to them. But that's one of the factors they have to consider for the very reason that was raised yesterday, which should be which should be raised, which is that President Trump, this Department of Justice does not stand for assaulting law enforcement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: What's your reaction to that?

DUNN: Well, a lot of it. It's so much with your just your intro there, so much to unpack there. I'll start with the President reading those words off the teleprompter. Like you just said, those moments he was trying to save his butt from impeachment because he was impeached and he was going through a trial. So, he was trying to save himself from getting convicted in the Senate, which it absolutely worked.

But going back to Todd Blanche, Donald Trump is pulling the strings here when it comes to this. And, you know, Donald Trump, he's supposed to be a way or objective of the Justice Department, but Todd Blanche is taking orders from Donald Trump. The five people that are going to be appointed to oversee these cases are going to be appointed by Todd Blanche, who is taking orders from Donald Trump.

[20:10:24]

I'm not surprised by these payments here or the creation of this, what I believe, illegal fund. I'm not surprised that it at all, because this was a campaign promise done by Donald Trump. Same thing with the pardons. And I believe it's extremely dangerous with these pardons, excuse me, with these payments now, The pardons on January 20th, 2025, when Donald Trump took office for the second time.

The pardons were just saying, hey, we forgive you. Thank you for committing violence in my name. Thank you for standing up for me. I forgive you; your sins are cleansed.

Now, this payment, now it offers a reward or if you will, an incentive, it incentivizes violence against law enforcement, against anybody actually, that is a supporter as long as you do it in Donald Trump's name. So, it's a very bad precedent. That's why we're were suing to stop it. But it's a very bad precedent that's going on now. And anybody that's supporting this, and Republicans that aren't forcefully condemning this, you need to be ashamed of themselves.

COOPER: Do you, I mean, you're alluding to this. Do you think this kind of a fund, which we may never know, who actually gets the money, that information will be sent, I guess, in some quarterly review to Todd Blanche and my understanding is will be kept confidential. Do you think this encourages or may encourage, like for the midterm elections? If some people decide they want to go to polling stations and, you know, do what they say is in protecting the constitution and rooting out, you know, malfeasance, which there's no evidence of, that they feel that the President will pardon them if they're doing it for him and potentially even, they can get some money out of it.

DUNN: Well, Anderson, I would argue that we do know who the money is going to. Donald Trump just said it like, right, before his boarding Air Force One there.

He said it, the people were treated horribly and they need to be compensated for it. Those are Donald Trump's words. So, we do know who it's going to. And also, by the way, these people, like you said, with Mr. Manafort, they pled guilty. They weren't, they didn't have appeals denied. It wasn't prosecutorial misconduct or judicial overreach. They were found guilty by a jury of their peers. And also, yes, I do believe that it absolutely sets the stage for Donald Trump to do it again.

I call it Donald Trump; this payment is going to serve as a retainer. People have retainers for their lawyers. So, when they need them, they're available. Donald Trump is putting a retainer on a mob, on a militia that's already showed the violence that they're willing to enact on his behalf.

And he's incentivizing it, too, because I don't believe that in 2029, Donald Trump is going to leave office peacefully. Why? Because he doesn't have a track record of doing it. He's the first President in over 250 years to say, were not going to have a peaceful transfer of power.

COOPER: Harry Dunn, thank you for your time and your service.

DUNN: Thank you. COOPER: I'm joined now by former federal prosecutor and best- selling author Jeffrey Toobin. Jeff, you've questioned whether anyone would have standing to sue over this on. You just heard officer Dunn. Do you think he clears that bar?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, AUTHOR AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I don't. I think he and the other plaintiff have a very good moral argument, a very good political argument. But I don't think they have a good legal argument under the Supreme Court's rule of standing.

The way federal lawsuit's work now is that plaintiffs have to assert that they suffered an injury, in fact, from the claimed, the basis for of the basis for their lawsuit. Here, I don't think the plaintiffs have a good claim that these payments injured them. They're offended by the payments. They feel threatened by the idea that these payments will be made. But that to me, as far as I understand, the law of standing is not enough to get them into federal court. So, I don't think they have a good case

COOPER: The lawsuit also lays out a challenge based on the 14th Amendment, which states that neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

TOOBIN: Right, there were a handful of defendants from the Proud Boys and others who were convicted of insurrection and there may be a reason to deny them payments. But again, I mean, what is so nefarious about how this has been set up is that these five appointees of the attorney general have almost unlimited discretion to decide who to give money to. And I don't see how anyone can get into court to challenge that.

I mean, that's the problem with the standing law here. There is this fund that this money is supposed to come from. And that's at least under current law, is entirely under the jurisdiction of the attorney general and he can spend it however he wants. The only way to stop this, I think, is from a law that Congress says you can't do it.

But, you know, they would have to pass it over Donald Trump's veto and that's not happening.

[20:15:36]

COOPER: It's going to be fascinating to see who these five people are who are selected. I mean, there's a whole rogues gallery of people that could be, you know, on this list to, to be selected for, for these five slots, we'll see. Jeff Toobin, thanks very much.

Coming up next January sixers who say they are ready to collect, including one who believes the attack he took part in and received a felony conviction for was a set up.

And later, could Central Africa's Ebola outbreak travel elsewhere or even here as an American is being treated for it. Some answers to what makes the virus spread and kill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:20:16]

COOPER: Plenty of January 6th rioters are eager to cash in on that newly created nearly $1.8 billion compensation fund for allies of the President, who say they were unfairly investigated by the previous administration. This, as we mentioned before, the break, two police officers who defended the Capitol that day sued to block any payouts. Donie O'Sullivan spoke to January 6thers who say they are thankful to the President.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRANDON FELLOWS, PARDONED JANUARY 6TH RIOTER: So, the number I've put in is $30 million. You know, $21.5 million is for the wrongful imprisonment.

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: People who took part in January 6th are hoping for big payouts.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We endured a lot. Our lives are still not the same. So, I don't know what kind of price you can put on that.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Even before the DOJ announced its so-called anti-weaponization fund this week.

O'SULLIVAN (on camera): How long were you in prison for?

FELLOWS: Jail and prison, I combine those numbers 1,075 days.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): People like Brandon Fellows had already begun making claims for compensation.

O'SULLIVAN (on camera): What's the reaction within the wider January 6th community to this fund?

FELLOWS: Some people are whining and saying it's not enough, and we're not even hearing numbers yet.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Fellows was sentenced on felony and misdemeanor charges for entering the Capitol on January 6th.

Seen here in a red beard costume, Fellows, spoke to CNN's Elle Reeve during the riot.

FELLOWS: So, they were smoking a bunch of weed in there.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): The charges against him were dismissed after a pardon from President Trump. Now, Fellows expects compensation.

FELLOWS: According to ChatGPT and Grok and also my knowledge of January 6th cases, I'm in at least the three to five percent upper tier for how terrible and also how strong of a case I have.

RACHEL POWELL, JANUARY 6TH RIOTER: It's like surreal to me. I mean, look how angry I look. O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Rachel Powell, a mom of eight and a grandmother to eight, spent three years under house arrest. We interviewed her before she began her prison sentence in 2024.

POWELL: I don't deserve this and my kids don't deserve it. Like, have we not been through enough?

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): She was released last year after being pardoned by Trump.

O'SULLIVAN (on camera): What do you say to people who are outraged and say people like you don't deserve a penny?

POWELL: A lot of people don't agree with what happened on January 6th, but when you step back and you look at somebody like me, for example, my major felony had to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It's my crime that day of breaking a window. Technically, that's a misdemeanor charge. And yet I had three years of house arrest than having to endure everything I did through prison and getting a five-year sentence on top of that. That's clearly weaponization.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Brandon Fellows still believes the lies about the 2020 election, and even believes that January 6th was a setup.

FELLOWS: But that's why I rationalize people, even violent people, getting paid for that day, because the government set it up. And also, on top of that, they stole the election.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over) And both Fellows and Powell remain loyal to President Trump and thankful for the so-called anti-weaponization fund. I feel like he has kept us in his mind. Despite all the other issues that he's got to deal with as leader of the world, basically.

O'SULLIVAN (on camera): Are you thankful to the President?

POWELL: Of course, I'm thankful. If it wasn't for the President, I'd still be sitting in that prison.

O'SULLIVAN (voice over): Donie O'Sullivan, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Joining me now with more perspective on this Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman. Congressman, what goes through your mind when you hear convicted January 6th rioters expressing gratitude for this fund?

REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): It absolutely drives me up the wall. I mean, let's be very clear, they were convicted either because they pled guilty or a jury convicted them unanimously, and their sentences were levied by judges, Article III judges.

So, they are, of course, complaining because they didn't like that there were consequences for their actions. But the notion that a pardon somehow means that they should be compensated for wrongful prosecution is preposterous. None of these people would ever win a legitimate case that they were wrongfully prosecuted, none. And the fact that Donald Trump made up a whole bogus lawsuit that he ultimately withdrew, and so, it is irrelevant to create this sham slush fund for January 6th defendants who rioted and stormed the Capitol and beat police officers to the tune of 140 serious injuries is an affront and an attack on all of our values.

And it's even worse because this slush fund, if it were to go forward. And I think there are many reasons why it won't, can be done in total secrecy.

[25:25:20]

COOPER: Do you think this fund can be used or may be used in the future to encourage others to commit acts which the President might like to have done, but can't publicly call for and with the idea that people can be compensated and pardoned?

GOLDMAN: Well, I certainly think that they know that anyway, right? I mean, they know that they can do, they can use violence in support of Donald Trump and they will not be punished. They will there will be no consequences because this Department of Justice for sure will not prosecute them. And Donald Trump has already pardoned them for doing the same thing.

So, even with the pardons he has created a militia in waiting for anything he needs and perhaps we're looking at it in November 2026. Now, with compensation, he's got a paid militia in waiting.

It is mind-boggling that this thing actually was put on paper and that there are people talking about it as if they were, you know, wrongfully treated and deserved $30 million. Give me a break.

COOPER: You also have the President's former defense attorney, very recently, former defense attorney, as the acting attorney general who is going to be appointing these five people, this brain trust of five unknown people who will disperse this money.

GOLDMAN: Yes, and in fact, the acting attorney general represented several people who would fall under Donald Trump's definition of wrongfully prosecuted individuals. And I wonder whether he is still owed money from them and if he will benefit from financially, from an award that would go to a Paul Manafort, who he represented.

I don't know what the fee arrangement is there, but very often defendants cannot pay their legal bills for quite some time, if ever. And so, I'd be interested, but it is, it's completely preposterous that, this is basically appointed by the President, the attorney general, yes appointed, appoints the five members. But the President can remove any at any time for any reason and he only needs three to approve a claim that doesn't have to be public. And we don't need to know and we probably won't know what the claim is, what the award is. If this were to actually go through. But this is not over yet.

COOPER: Congressman Goldman, I appreciate your time, thank you.

Coming up next, despite the President's stated willingness today to hold off on new strikes on Iran, new word tonight about tensions with Israel over what to do next.

And later, the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa, what it will take to try to contain it there, how difficult that may be and how can it be kept from going global. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:32:34]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Could go very quickly or a few days. It could be a few days, but it could go very quickly. Iran is a defeated nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST OF "ANDERSON COOPER 360": The president this afternoon with his latest take on the war and negotiations, he said he's not frustrated at the pace of those talks, saying he's willing to take a few more days if it means it will "save people being killed." Tonight though, CNN has learned that Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, wants the strikes on Iran to resume and told the president so yesterday in what one American official described as a tense phone call. There's also new reporting the Times, in New York Times, about who the Israelis were trying to install as Iran's new leader at the start of the war.

It's a fascinating report. Namely they were trying to install the traditionally hardline anti-Israel, anti-American, former President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to the Times, the plan came unglued when Ahmadinejad, who had been consulted in advance on the plan, was hurt by an Israeli strike at his home which had been designed to free him from house arrest, which he was under for criticizing the Iranian regime over alleged corruption.

According to the Times, he then soured on the notion and has since dropped from sight. Some perspective now on all this from Richard Haass, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, former longtime senior U.S. diplomat. He is also the author of "Home & Away" newsletter on Substack.

Ambassador, what do you think of this? First of all, where do you see the Americans positioned right now, this administration's position vis-a-vis Iran?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: It's pretty clear to me we do not want to initiate or resume military activities, worried about how Iran might respond to that. Retaliation could be very expensive for our friends in the region and for the world economy.

COOPER: Do you think it's the strategic concerns is driving that or economic concerns here at home?

HAASS: Largely economic not just here at home, but really globally, I think so. I think that's, you know, so a lot of talk about a military force, but the reality, there's not an attractive set of targets.

COOPER: The U.S. wants a deal you think, the administration?

HAASS: Absolutely because, right now, we're in a situation of drift. But sooner or later, the price of drift is going to go up, so I think, yes, the administration wants a deal.

COOPER: The president says that they are close to something. Do you believe that's likely true and what sort of a deal could be hashed out in this amount of time over the phone?

HAASS: Well, there's really two issues at the heart of the deal, which is what's going to happen with the Strait? How do you drop the two blockades, get it reopened, if so under what terms? Obviously, then all the nuclear issues, what do you do with the enriched uranium? What about future enrichment? What about inspectors to get inside?

[20:35:00]

COOPER: Do you think that will all be settled by the time a deal is done or is this a framework?

HAASS: I think it's a framework but there's got to be enough to get the Strait open. That's immediacy pressure. On the nuclear, so long as Iran does not change the status of its nuclear program, if it takes three months or three years, it doesn't matter that much, so long as you're confident they're not getting closer to a bomb.

COOPER: The president says that Prime Minister Netanyahu, "will do whatever I want him to do." Do you think that's true?

HAASS: Pretty much. You know, Bibi Netanyahu is running, you know, for re-election. It has to happen between now and October. His principal calling card is that he has this close relationship with Donald Trump, who is wildly popular in Israel. So the idea that Bibi Netanyahu, months before this election, could get at cross-purposes with Donald Trump, highly unlikely.

Plus, if he doesn't like what Donald Trump does, who's he going to turn to? Who can he run around to? It was one thing when Joe Biden was president, then you could go to Republicans. Right now, there's no place for Bibi Netanyahu to go.

COOPER: There's also this New York Times report, which I found fascinating, that the former president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who many Americans likely will remember, is going to be the next leader of Iran. Do you find that odd?

(LAUGH)

HAASS: It's diplomatic under-materialism (ph) that I find it odd. It makes me think the onion (ph) is putting out the story right in the New York Times.

COOPER: I mean, It says that, according to the reporting, Ahmadinejad was kind of in on it until the Israelis, you know, they bombed his property, which was apparently to get him released from house arrest, and yet, then somehow he changed his mind after that, and now he hasn't been seen out.

HAASS: Well, this whole thing is remarkably far-fetched, as is the entire idea of regime change in Iran. The idea that military force was going to trigger regime change, and you were then going to get an Iranian leader who was willing and able to cut a deal with you that you could live with was far-fetched. The idea that Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier and worse, could have been that person, it's really head-shaking.

COOPER: I mean, do you think it's not true, or do you think it's just bizarre?

HAASS: I think either way, his life is either soon going to be over or it is over. It's certainly bizarre, if it's true, the idea that people singled him out as someone we could work with.

COOPER: The fact that he hasn't been seen, he was seen briefly, and now he hasn't been seen ever since, that doesn't bode well in Iran, ever.

HAASS: No, and again, this isn't a regime that's been, you know, would kill, what, 30,000 or more people if they had to kill somebody else. I don't think they would morally balk at that.

COOPER: If the U.S. does decide to resume strikes, to what end? I mean, do we have the military capabilities to end this on the terms we want it to?

HAASS: Absolutely not. It's not clear what the political or military results of using new military force would be. That's why, again, a resumption doesn't make any sense. You're not going to get regime change. You're not going to get capitulation. And again, if you really hurt Iran by going after, say, their energy infrastructure, they're going to reciprocate in kind. And this crisis then becomes a global calamity. So I simply think that's a pretty empty bluff at this point.

COOPER: Do you think a deal in which the strait is opened but Iran gets a toll is tenable?

HAASS: We might want to look at, you know, what the size of the toll is, who else might share in the proceeds. I think the idea, though, Anderson, that we're going to go back to what existed before, a totally open waterway is probably a pipe dream.

COOPER: Really?

HAASS: But I think we could get something that we could live with on the Strait. We'll see probably something loose on the nuclear. I think what we're also setting up here, though, is real friction between the United States and Israel because we're probably not going to get limits on Iranian support for their proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, probably not going to get meaningful control, say, on Iranian ballistic missiles or drones. We're probably going to get an Iranian requirement that the ceasefire is locked in. Israel is not going to want or like any of that. So one of the ironies here is Israel had more than a little bit to do with persuading Trump to start the war. This could be a war that drives a real wedge between the United States and Israel over time.

COOPER: Ambassador Haass, I appreciate your time.

HAASS: Always.

COOPER: Up next, what is being done and what still needs to be done to end the Ebola outbreak now raging in Central Africa and keep a lethal virus in a connected world from spreading any further. Also, an update on the American surgeon who's now being treated for it and a new report on the president's Reflection Pool project in the nation's capital, the Reflecting Pool, who made suggestions on the repair and helped recruit one of the contractors, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:43:41]

COOPER: A rare strain of Ebola is spreading quickly with no vaccine or treatment available. So far at least 148 people have died. There are nearly 600 suspected cases of the virus in Central Africa. The World Health Organization says it poses a high local and regional risk, and likely began months ago. Health officials though say any global risk remains low for now.

Tonight, one American citizen, a doctor, Peter Stafford, who got infected with the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is in isolation in a unit in at a Berlin Hospital. According to a German official, Dr. Stafford, who's there with his family, is in stable condition. His wife, also a doctor, along with their four young children, they've tested negative with no symptoms. Another doctor who'd been working with the two Dr. Staffords is being monitored in the Czech Republic.

Joining now is Michelle Hopping from Serge, the Christian missionary group that all three doctors are part of. Michelle, thanks for being with us. First of all, how is Dr. Stafford doing and what can you share about the kind of care he's getting?

MICHELLE HOPPING, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF ENGAGEMENT, SERGE: Thanks, Anderson. Yeah, our leaders have been in touch with Peter today via text. And so, we're grateful that he's even able to do that. Just because a day ago, he needed assistance to walk and was experiencing severe symptoms. So now that he's at the hospital in Germany, he's been able to eat, he's able to text and be fully present, so these are positive signs.

[20:45:00]

COOPER: And his family, I know -- I understand they are being observed as well. Are they at the hospital? Are they still asymptomatic? HOPPING: Yes, actually just as of -- just a few hours ago, Dr. Rebecca Stafford and their four kids landed in Germany to be in that location with Peter, of course, in a separate part of the hospital. So they do need to quarantine a little longer while they're monitored, but they all have no symptoms.

COOPER: I've spent a lot of time in DRC. I care about the country a lot. It obviously needs a lot of medical help. What was Dr. Stafford doing while he was there?

HOPPING: Yeah, so Dr. Peter Stafford, he's a board-certified surgical specialist. So in a place like DRC, the ratio of surgeons to patients is not balanced. And so, you can imagine a surgeon in that setting, performing all different kinds of procedures, everything from, you know, routine sort of things all the way up to, you know, major viruses such as Ebola.

COOPER: What part of the country was he working in?

HOPPING: Yeah, so he was primarily working out of Nyankunde Hospital and also in Bunia. Our team is serving both of those locations.

COOPER: And I know in all this, you want to make sure that the Congolese people are not lost in this conversation.

HOPPING: Yeah, both doctors Stafford are dedicated physicians who really love the Congolese community. One of the things that I want to highlight is, you know, Peter's story is rightfully receiving a lot of attention, but the risk for the Congolese is not over in this circumstance.

So, Peter's story does give many people a window into the DRC and the monumental challenges that they're facing. The great thing about Peter's work and his focus is, it's not only on the clinical practice, but on teaching and training the next generation of Congolese physicians. And the goal there is really to narrow the gap of access to good care.

COOPER: Have you heard much about what kind of care people in DRC are getting who have tested positive?

HOPPING: No, I'm not privy to that information. I know that resources have been slim, though, and the testing that they had available needed to catch up because the tests that were on hand prior to the outbreak being identified were tests that were meant to identify the previous, the Zaire version of the virus, not the Bundibugyo version.

COOPER: This is a rarer version of the virus. Michelle Hopping, I really appreciate what you do and you joining us. Thank you.

Joining me now is Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. So, Sanjay, what does it tell you that Dr. Stafford is receiving? He is receiving monoclonal antibody treatment. But as you and I talked about in a Q&A live on CNN.com earlier today, and we just talked about here, this version of the virus is different than the last one. DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's different. So this is going to be an experimental monoclonal antibody. I mean, it's interesting. When we were reported on this in 2014, I remember Kent Brantly, the American who became infected initially then, he was receiving an experimental monoclonal antibody called ZMapp, but that was for a different virus, as you were just talking about. So this is, there's not a lot of data.

It's supposed to be sort of a broad spectrum monoclonal antibody, meaning effective against various types of Ebola viruses. But most of the data there is animal data. I think the most encouraging thing that you just heard was that he seemed like he was quite sick when he was evacuated, Dr. Stafford, but he's improving.

So that's a good sign versus he's going through just a natural phase of the disease. Typically, people start with sort of dry symptoms, fever, headache, myalgias, you know, muscle aches, and then they go to what is called a wet phase of the disease, which is vomiting and sometimes even bleeding, which is associated with Ebola. Hopefully, he doesn't progress to that point.

COOPER: One of the reasons, obviously, Dr. Stafford's case has gotten so much attention is the potential of this to travel outside the borders of DRC with air travel. During the Ebola outbreak in 2014 that killed more than 11,000 people, how did this outbreak compare to what you experienced back then and the potential for it traveling outside the borders?

GUPTA: Well, it was really interesting because in 2014, when I was there, we were in Guinea, in Conakry, the capital city, and you really had not heard of Ebola getting into a capital city with an international airport before. That was sort of the first time that had happened, at least happened in any kind of scale.

Now, as you point out, a couple of big cities, Goma and Kampala, I think both, I think, have had positive or at least presumed positive cases of Ebola, and these are, you know, crowded areas. So that's a concern.

[20:50:00]

I think one of the big concerns here is that by the time these cases were confirmed and the public health emergency was called, it was already quite a large outbreak, Anderson.

It was much smaller by the time it was called back in 2014. So I still think, as everyone has said, there's a low risk to the global community, but the fact that the surveillance wasn't there at least robustly enough initially, that's a concern with, you know, spreads like this, outbreaks like this.

COOPER: And can you just explain the difference between infectiousness and contagiousness when it comes to Ebola? Is it only contagious when someone is showing symptoms?

GUPTA: Yeah, so contagiousness, this is not a very contagious virus. It is not airborne, for example. You would have to have an exchange of bodily fluids. Like if there was virus in someone's bodily fluid and it got onto a cut on your hand, for example, or somehow broke the skin, that could cause an infection.

So it's low contagiousness, but high infectiousness. Doesn't spread easily, but only a small amount of fluid is required to actually cause that spread. And that's why, you know, when I was there and see all the doctors, they should be dressing in those sort of spacesuit-like outfits because even drops of Ebola fluid could potentially cause an infection.

COOPER: Yeah, we've seen obviously in other outbreaks, medical personnel who are often succumbed to it. I mean, they just don't have the equipment. They don't have the protective gear.

GUPTA: That's right. I mean, I think that's me gowning up there. And you know, that's part of the problem. You know, the healthcare worker back in April 24th, that was the first person that they think now became infected. Probably did not even think to wear the personal protective equipment or at least this degree of it because they didn't know probably at that point.

But as I think you were just alluding to in your conversation with the representative from Serge, many of these places don't have this level of protective equipment. So, you know, healthcare providers --

COOPER: Yeah.

GUPTA: -- even once they know they're in the midst of an Ebola outbreak, may not be able to always control it.

COOPER: Yeah, and yet often continue doing heroic work. Sanjay Gupta, thanks so much.

Coming up, new questions about the president's latest multimillion dollar project at taxpayers' expense. You're going to, well, wait till you hear until who the New York Times says has been advising the government on repainting the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. There's a little hint, his day job involves 18 (ph) hotels. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:40]

COOPER: Tomorrow, the Trump administration will face a major legal test over the president's Reflecting Pool overhaul. A Trump-appointed judge will hold a hearing Thursday on a request from a non-profit foundation asking for the project to be halted, arguing the administration will "deface an iconic landmark."

The Justice Department is set to submit their defense of the project on Monday. This comes as new reporting from the New York Times finds that the general manager of President Trump's Bedminster Golf Club has been taking on a major role in the project. According to the Times, the manager is a private citizen with no known background in engineering or architecture.

Joining me now is New York Times Investigative Reporter, David Fahrenthold, who broke the story. So what more have you learned about why this person is involved with this Reflecting Pool project?

DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, he seems to be somebody that President Trump consults for, you know, advice on things that involve building, you know, but there's really nothing that this person, the Bedminster Golf general manager, has ever dealt with, really a lot of engineers have dealt with, that's like the reflecting pool.

It's a beautiful icon, but it's also really complicated, prone to lots of problems, and decades of highly trained engineers have failed to solve those problems.

COOPER: Does your reporting indicate that this person has relevant experience when it comes to a major project like this?

FAHRENTHOLD: No, he has an illustrious career in hospitality, two degrees in hospitality, but no, no training in anything like this. And this really is something that, despite what it looks like, it's actually a really complicated project.

COOPER: So what is being done and what isn't being done?

FAHRENTHOLD: So you have to understand that the Reflecting Pool has two big problems. It leaks between holes and sort of gaps between the concrete slabs, and it also gets lots and lots of algae. So what they're doing now is going to solve one of those problems. They're filling in the gaps between those slabs, but they're also doing something that basically nobody has ever thought to do, which is they're spraying waterproofing across the concrete slabs, which are already basically waterproof.

So that's sort of redundant. It's not going to harm anything, but it's not going to hurt anything, and they aren't going to help anything. And the bigger problem is that they're not doing the major repairs that are needed to stop the algae bloom. So we worry about whether the pool is going to look blue or gray when they're done. The real question is whether it's going to look green because they haven't managed to make the pool any cleaner.

COOPER: The president initially said the renovation will cost $1.8 million. Federal records show the price tag is now at $13.1 million. Is it clear how firm that number is? I mean, is it possible it may go higher?

FAHRENTHOLD: It could go higher. In fact, President Trump said the other day, look, I'm spending more on this project because I want it to be right. What we've seen is it's supposed to be done by Friday. That was the government's initial goal. They don't seem to be anywhere close to done. And so I think it is possible, yes, that the price tag could go up.

COOPER: And apart from the Bedminster Golf Course adviser advising the project, there are also questions about the company who was given the government contract. What do we know about them?

FAHRENTHOLD: Well, it's important to know that it's a no-bid contract. So the government didn't go out and ask a bunch of people who could do this job best or for the best price. It just gave the contract, without any questions, to one company. President Trump initially said that he knew that company because they'd worked on his golf course in northern Virginia. Now he says that's not true.

So this company, it's a small company based in Virginia, and what they do basically is spray coating inside of pipes, like highway culverts and other things.

[21:00:00]

They don't advertise any expertise in pools, swimming pools, much less large pools like this. So it seems like they're doing a job that's really different than the work they normally do. And they were -- you know, nobody else was given a chance to do this job better or cheaper.

COOPER: Well, David Fahrenthold, as always, fascinating reporting. Appreciate it.

That's it for us. The news continues. "The Source with Kaitlan Collins" starts now. I'll see you tomorrow.