Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

Justice Department Convinces Federal Judge Trump Used His Attorney In Furtherance Of A Crime In Classified Documents Probe; New York D.A. Weighs Historic Trump Indictment In Hush Money Probe; Fox News Producer Files Explosive Lawsuits Against Network; San Francisco Considering $5 Million Reparation Payouts; Artificial Intelligence Versus Humans; Novak Djokovic No Longer #1 Tennis Player In The World. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired March 21, 2023 - 22:00   ET




ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN TONIGHT.

We are following breaking news about the classified documents found in Mar-a-Lago. Sources tell CNN that a federal judge believes Donald Trump may have used his own defense attorney to commit a crime. That means attorney-client privilege would not apply and that the defense attorney could have to testify in front of a grand jury. We'll have much more on this development for you.

We're also hearing new details about the inner workings of the Fox network from the lawsuit filed by a producer who worked with Maria Bartiromo and Tucker Carlson. The producer describes the toxic stew of sexism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism that she experienced inside Fox, including all the names that executives called Maria Bartiromo, like, quote, crazy bitch and menopausal. And why Tucker Carlson was so enamored of photos of Nancy Pelosi in a bathing suit. We'll explain. This producer also alleges that she was coached by fox lawyers to give misleading testimony in the dominion lawsuit.

Plus, we'll talk about law enforcement seeing in uptick and violent chatter online from right-wing extremists about a possible indictment against Donald Trump. We'll find out if it's any different than what they heard right before January 6th.

And about those hush money payments, Donald Trump's lawyer is now saying something very different than he did on this very program back in 2018. We will play with you Joe Tacopina now arguing against Joe Tacopina and then.

And here's a question for you. Did A.I. create this photo of? We have a quiz to test my panelists and your A.I. knowledge. And we'll tell you the secret to how you can spot what is A.I. and what is not. So, let's get to all of the news.

My panel is here. I have The Roots' Jessica Washington here, also Political Commentator Scott Jennings, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is with us, and former pro tennis player Patrick McEnroe.

But, first let's get to our breaking news. A federal judge believes that former President Trump may have used one of his own attorneys to commit a crime regarding those classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez is here with more. Evan, explain all this to us.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, this is a big deal because this is the first time we are seeing from a judge or at least hearing about a judge determining that Donald Trump himself may have committed a crime.

And what she has ruled, this is in a sealed proceeding, so we don't have the benefit of seeing exactly what she wrote, we only have it based on reporting from sources to Kaitlan Collins, Sara Murray and a couple of others on our team.

But what this judge, Judge Beryl Howell, who has been overseeing these secret proceedings, is saying is that because what Donald Trump was involved in with his lawyer essentially may have been a crime, he no longer has the benefit of attorney-client privilege, and Even Corcoran, the lawyer in question has to appear before the grand jury, has to respond, has to answer questions from prosecutors.

He can no longer say he can't blanketly declare that he won't answer questions from prosecutors because of attorney client privilege. This is the first time, again, that a judge is saying this. And so, that is a big deal. It now means that we may see Evan Corcoran have to appear in the next day or so before the federal grand jury in Washington.

CAMEROTA: That's what I was going to ask, Evan. What happens now?

PEREZ: Well, first of, all because this is Donald Trump and his legal team, they're appealing everything. They are fighting this to the D.C. Circuit. And we have seen an extremely unusual move by the D.C. Circuit. They're asking the -- both teams, both legal teams to provide more information to the judges, the appeals court judges, tonight. One deadline is at midnight and another one is at 6:00 A.M. We've never seen that before.

So, it appears that the appeals court wants to try to get to this and perhaps make a ruling and perhaps give some clarity within the coming hours. And, again, he might see Evan Corcoran, the lawyer for former President Trump, having to appear before the grand jury.

Just to back up just a little bit, Alisyn, Evan Corcoran is an important figure in the investigation into the classified documents that were found at Mar-a-Lago, because, you know, he was involved in talking to the Justice Department about whether there were additional classified documents were there, which we now know, of course, there were.

[22:05:08] And so the question is, was he -- did he mislead the Justice Department and the FBI based on lies that were told by his client, Donald Trump? That appears to be what the Justice Department is going for and why they want him to come in and answer questions to the grand jury.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Thank you for all of that explanation. I want to bring in my panel now. We're also joined by CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst Andrew McCabe. Great to have all you with me tonight.

Governor, you're an attorney. What do you think of this development? What does it mean for Evan Corcoran and for Donald Trump and the entire case?

FMR. GOV. DEVAL PATRICK (D-MA): Well, let me first say that I take no pleasure in a former president, any former president, being prosecuted, being subject to criminal indictment, potential criminal indictment. And I will say that the accountability of this president seems to be taking a long time. But brick-by-brick, the Justice Department is building its case. And this is a step forward and I think that accountability is essential.

So, as I say, I take no pleasure. But I do think it's important in sort of a culture of impunity that we seem to have and that this president, I think, has lived in and even encouraged and flaunted for a long, long time, that this is an important step forward and a further indication that this case is being built and built well.

CAMEROTA: Patrick, you'll remember that President Trump's attorneys vouched for him. Yes, there are no more classified documents here, and then there were. And so it's hard to know if they knew that they were misleading the DOJ or the archives or if -- well, we just don't know.

PATRICK MCENROE, FORMER PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: Well, as the governor just said, accountability seems like it's maybe finally going to want to happen. I know I surprise you a little bit last night, Alisyn, when I said Trump is a genius. And you looked at me and said, excuse me?

CAMEROTA: Well, I just wanted you to make your case.

MCENROE: Well, here's what I mean and here's what I think maybe even the geniuses slip up. And it seems to me that when we first heard about this breaking, that maybe, finally, he did something where he could not skirt the full responsibility and full accountability. Because it always seems to me, you know, from the outside looking in, I'm not an insider, that he has always found a way to manipulate the situations that he's not the one. It's always someone else that screwed that up. Well, in this case, maybe finally they caught him being the one that actually did it.

CAMEROTA: Jessica, thoughts?

JESSICA WASHINGTON, SENIOR REPORTER, THE ROOT: Yes, there's nothing Trump could do at this point to surprise me. And these are allegations, I'm the daughter of an attorney, I'm not going to get ahead of this, but, yes, there's absolutely nothing I could find out about Trump and what he has gone on in Mar-a-Lago or any of this that would shock me at this point.


SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I mean, I'm not even the child of an attorney. I'm just sitting next to one. I'm just a cave man. But, look, we don't know much about -- I mean, obviously, the details here are scanned (ph). I would just say there's two -- Trump has two paperwork stories in the news. I will leave you to decide which one is more important than the other. I mean, obviously, the Mar-a-Lago thing is more vital and interesting and recent than the other thing we're going to talk about.

CAMEROTA: Well, I understand what you are saying. I mean, you're referring to the hush money payment. But, I don't know if we have to prioritize crimes. I mean, In other words, if two things are a crime, can't you be prosecuted or investigated for both?

JENNINGS: I mean, well, obviously, you can because it's happening --

CAMEROTA: Does it have to be mutually exclusive? And you seem to feel as though they should be mutually exclusive.

JENNINGS: I mean, look, if I were just analyzing this on, you know, what's most important and what we should be spending our time on, this Mar-a-Lago thing seems pretty vital to me, the election, Georgia, January 6th, this all seems pretty vital to me. Seven-year-old, you know, miss filed some paperwork over an affair, it seems less vital when you have that all this other stuff.

And my concern would be that if he ends up getting indicted tomorrow -- we don't know, but if it does and then you've got this other stuff going on, the political taint of what's going on in New York could affect at least the public's perception of any of the other more vital stuff to come.

CAMEROTA: Andrew, your thoughts?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes. I understand Scott's position. I think from a purely optics perspective, people are looking at the potential indictment in New York and thinking is this really significant enough. But let's remember that the New York county prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, he's not worried about Georgia, he's not worried what January 6th, he's not worried about what Jack Smith and the federal prosecutors that work for him are doing, he's worried about crimes that were committed in New York. And this is allegedly a crime that was committed in New York.

We can't -- we don't parse out what gets investigated and what gets prosecuted in this country by what people are most interested in. We leave it up to prosecutors to determine when they have probable cause to believe a crime was committed and whether or not they have evidence to prove that crime sufficient to take it forward to an indictment.

[22:10:02] So, I understand the perception issues but they are essentially irrelevant to the underlying legal issues.

JENNINGS: I mean, respectfully, I disagree. Prosecutors make decisions about what to do all the time. I mean, this particular prosecutor in New York has downgraded something like 52 percent of felonies down to misdemeanors, pretty serious stuff. And in this particular case, he's making a personal decision to elevate a paperwork misdemeanor, maybe up to a crazy felony that no one can seem to explain or understand. So --

CAMEROTA: Well, we have not seen the evidence yet.

JENNINGS: But I just -- to say that he has no choice but to do this, he has plenty of choices, and he's made some crazy ones in New York, and he's making this one too. So, there is personal discretion here, is there not?

CAMEROTA: I hear you, yes. Quickly, Andrew.

MCCABE: There is personal discretion, but that's what the voters in New York elected him to do. And he is using that discretion within the boundary of his authority of his position. And this is -- you know, if they don't like the way he's using his discretion, they voted for someone else next time. But it doesn't make what he's doing illegal or insignificant.

CAMEROTA: Okay. I want to move on to the Stormy Daniels case because there's an interesting wrinkle right now that we've just learned about and that is that one of President Trump's attorneys, Joe Tacopina, who has been around as a legal pundit for a long time, I mean, I've interviewed him years ago, Joe Tacopina is a well-known face in New York, he is now acting as former President Trump's attorney.

But, apparently, there may be a conflict of interest because in 2018, he had some sort of communication, we don't know exactly what yet, with Stormy Daniels, which would mean that he cannot serve, I think, Governor, as President Trump's attorney on this matter.

PATRICK: You know, I'm going to be real careful if you're asking me for an opinion on that, because I don't know enough about those details. If he represented her --

CAMEROTA: I think he was considering representing her. And so there may have been communications. And would that disqualify him?

PATRICK: Not necessarily, not necessarily. It's -- and as I say, I think anyone would have to have more information before making a call.

MCENROE: Let me just say I'm not surprised that he's possibly, you know, representing Trump, because we've heard him in New York, especially all over the radio for many, many years.

But just to go back, because it's tied into the Stormy Daniels situations, like Scott said, I agree with what you're saying about this particular case. To me, it's not that big of a deal in comparison to the other things that have been alleged against former President Trump. But that being said, wouldn't have been nice, Scott, to hear from some of these big Republican politicians over the last day, if they said, hey, we don't like this, we think this is a political witch hunt, but let's, as you said, Alisyn, let's wait to see what the evidence? Could just one of them have said that? JENNINGS: Well, I mean, Don Bacon said. He is one of the more

moderate members of the House. He held back. He said he was going to wait and see what the evidence is. So -- but I think what most the Republicans have concluded though is that this particular prosecutor isn't really all that interested in the facts and the evidence himself, he's just interested in getting Trump at all costs. That's their perception.

MCENROE: That's a talking point.

CAMEROTA: Yes. But hold on. Let me just say this. You know who really thought it was an important case in 2018, a valid case, Joe Tacopina. And you know where he said it? On this very program.

And so here is Joe Tacopina -- let me see in what order we're doing this. So, this is Joe Tacopina then and now. Here he is in 2018.


JOE TACOPINA, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: I mean, you know, once that net is, out once the microscope is on you, everything is fair game. And it's hard to argue, you can't look at this or you can look at that. So, yes, if there is an issue with that payment to Stormy Daniels being that it was made on behalf of the candidate, okay, and it was not declared, that's fair game, that a lawyer took out a home equity loan with his own money, paid somebody that he did not even know, on behalf of client, who, by the way, had the wherewithal on the money to afford $130, 000, and, by the way, did not tell the client about the settlement agreement, it's an illegal agreement, it's a fraud, if that's, in fact, the case. It doesn't make sense, it doesn't pass the straight face test. And, quite frankly, if that is what happened, we have a potential campaign finance issue.

Does anyone actually believe, anyone, left, right, middle, whatever, that if someone else were accused of paying hush money to avoid a public sex scandal in the manner that Donald Trump is alleged to have avoided a public sex scandal, they would be prosecuted, the answer is 100 percent no.


CAMEROTA: You know who actually believes it, Jessica? Joe Tacopina.

WASHINGTON: That is amazing editing. That is very cool to see.

CAMEROTA: On this program, okay? We're visionaries here, okay, as you can see.

WASHINGTON: You're seeing into the future.

CAMEROTA: Yes. WASHINGTON: I mean, Trump and his allies are going to try and spin this any way that they can right now, even going against the things that they previously said, as you just witnessed, which is incredible.


But, I mean, it is true that this is a more complicated legal case. You know, talking to attorneys, talking to -- and I spoke to former San Francisco Prosecutor Paul Henderson about this, I mean, he said this is more complicated legal case. What we are talking out as a novel legal theory here where you're saying that the crimes that were misdemeanors that he was trying to do in order to cover up a separate misdemeanor, and that's what's making it a felony, potentially. And we still have to get into some of the evidence. But it's obviously a more complicated legal case. It does not mean it's relevant but it obviously isn't as strong as some of the other cases that we're seeing potentially in Georgia. And so that is the risk here.

CAMEROTA: Okay. So, from the fun, Andrew, to the concerning, and that is that there is all sorts of online chatter and disturbing threats that are going around in terms of right-wing extremists saying what they would do if Donald Trump were indicted. And so how do you think that differs from before January 6th?

MCCABE: Well, I mean, I guess I'd like to hope that our kind of security infrastructure, my former colleagues at the bureau, their partners at DHS, and in this case, the NYPD, are a little more aggressively or I should say inclusively looking at that sort of chatter to develop a richer understanding of what to expect in the event that the former president is indicted and arraigned in court but. It's hard -- honestly, it's hard to say that because we haven't heard much about what these agencies have done to improve upon the performance they had before January 6th.

It was really kind of an issue that was overlooked by the January 6th committee. None of the heads of those agencies have really been held accountable publicly. They haven't made any statements about how they're approaching the job differently. However, I'm going to continue to have faith in them that they're looking at that sort of chatter. Not to, you know, start up investigations on everyone on social media but rather to just get a sense of what sort of sentiment is out there and what sort of response they can expect in New York or D.C. or any place else.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Friends, thank you all very much. Stick around, if you would, because we're going to talk about all of the new revelations about Fox that are coming out courtesy of our producer who worked on Maria Bartiromo's show and Tucker Carlson's show. It is even worse than you would imagine.



CAMEROTA: A producer who worked on Maria Bartiromo's show and Tucker Carlson's making explosives charges in a lawsuit against the Fox network.

My panel is still here, also joining us, CNN Senior Media Reporter Oliver Darcy. Oliver, tell us the latest.

OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER: Yes, Alisyn. This is a really explosive pair of lawsuits filed by this former Fox News producer, or sorry, current Fox News producer who is on administrative leave. She alleges that the network and their legal team coerced or into providing misleading testimony as part of Dominion Voting System's $1.6 million defamation lawsuit against the channel, and she's also making a number of other explosive claims, including some of rampant sexism inside the network.

She accuses senior Fox personnel of ridiculing Maria Bartiromo, who she worked for, in private, calling her menopausal and crazy. She says that when her first day at Tucker Carlson's show started, she was greeted with large images of Nancy Pelosi in a bathing suit in the workplace, a number of disturbing allegations from this Fox News producer. And Fox News, for its part, Alisyn, I should say, they are saying that they are going to defend this lawsuit, but, you know, I talked to her attorney last night, and they are saying they have ample forms of documentary evidence that support some of these claims that she's making here.

CAMEROTA: Yes. I mean, Oliver, it's all so -- some of it is just so repugnant, it's hard to know where to begin. Thank you very much. Well, you can stay with us because I'm sure we'll have questions for you. I want to bring in the panel now.

Scott, the misogyny that she explains, I mean, that she describes, the sexism, the anti-Semitism, here, let me read you something. So, she describes lots of anti-Semitism. There were lots of jokes about Jewish members of the staff. Here is one. Anytime Tucker Carlson's booking producer, Eldad Yaron, purchased launch from the Jewish bakery known as Breads Bakery, one of the producers, McCaskill, loudly proclaimed to the Tucker Carlson booking team that Mr. Yaron went to the Jew bakery and that he had gone to see is people. This is just one example. And then the whole lawsuit is filled with stuff like this.

It's 1970 inside the halls of Fox, as she describes it, with a poster of Nancy Pelosi in a bathing suit that they would all yuck it about. Your thoughts?

JENNINGS: Yes. Well, I mean, without knowing the inner workings of what's going on over there, I would just say everyone deserves to be in a workplace that is respectful and treats everybody with the respect and dignity they deserve. And so she's obviously got every right to bring this claim, Fox has every right to defend it. But, certainly, it's not the kind of behavior I would condone in a workplace that I was managing. And I do manage one, and we don't condone that kind of stuff. So, I understand the discomfort.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Jessica?

WASHINGTON: Yes. I mean, that is just kind of a horrifying display. And, obviously, these are allegations. We can't say this is definitely what happened. But, I mean, that's just -- it's not that different from other things we have heard, frankly, and also things that have been shown on that network. So, I will say that, you know, if those times are true, that is absolutely abhorrent.

CAMEROTA: Here is another abhorrent tidbit from her lawsuit. She says, on one occasion, on or about October 17th, Michigan Gubernatorial Candidate Tudor Dixon was scheduled to appear as a guest on Tucker Carlson to discuss her campaign. Before her arrival, a crass and sexist discussion in the newsroom ensued regarding whether Mr. Dixon or her opponent, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, was hotter and more f'able.

This debate was moderated by one of our editorial producers, Andrew Carmichael, who made several sexist remarks about the two women's appearance and even polled the office on their views.


I mean, when the interesting things, Patrick, is that Fox got in trouble in 2016 and '17. Roger Ailes was ousted. They allegedly did sort of a cleaning of house, they brought in some H.R. people. I'm not sure that it's necessarily working.

MCENROE: It doesn't sound like it. Now, this sounds like it's going from bad to worse for them. And to me, I mean, this is a serious issue and seriously horrendous, when you hear some of these reports and what's been going on.

But the larger issue to me that has been percolating for a while now is, you know, this sort of circular echo chamber that they have produced, you know, amongst politicians, amongst the Mike Lindells of the world, again, to sort of, in some ways, pass the buck about who's responsible for what happened with the election and the election denier. So, they always seem to find a way to make it. They weren't responsible. You know, Tucker Carlson is just -- he's just having a guest on who's saying something that may be irresponsible or incorrect. So, this whole sort of circular world they created seems like it's starting to fall down, tumble down.

CAMEROTA: Governor?

PATRICK: I mean, in the more you hear about the inner workings of Fox -- I hesitate to call it Fox News.


PATRICK: the more apparent, it seems, that this is a deeply unserious place. They're not interested in reporting in a comprehensive and complete way. And, indeed, in the case of the Dominion voting machines case, evidently, not even in a truthful where, let alone, accurate. And yet they continue to hold themselves out as a news organization.

There is a responsibility that goes with that. And there's a tremendous amount of power that goes with that, which is the reason it seems to me, we as viewers, we as a public ought to demand responsibility alongside it. CAMEROTA: Yes. Oliver, thank you very much for all the reporting. Obviously this isn't going away, since we seem to get new revelations every single week. Thank you all.

All right, meanwhile what's the right amount to pay reparations? San Francisco's Board of Supervisors says that it could be $5 million a person. So, why is the city's criticizing that plan? We'll find out right after this.



CAMEROTA: A draft plan that could see $5 million reparation payments to eligible black residents of San Francisco is moving on to the next step. But the city's NAACP leader says these proposals are giving black residents false hope.

Joining me now is the president of the San Francisco NAACP and the pastor of the Third Baptist Church, Reverend Amos C. Brown. Dr. Brown, thank you so much for being here. So, $5 million to every black resident. That sounds good to me. That sounds like something that -- that sounds like a plan that everyone would like who would be a recipient of that. So why don't you like that plan?

AMOS C. BROWN, PRESIDENT, SAN FRANCISCO NAACP: Let me correct something. The board has not agreed to my $5 million plan. That's something --

CAMEROTA: Yeah, it's a proposal, I get it. I know. It's a proposal, but why don't you like the proposal?

BRWON: Because it has become a laughing stock around this nation. And representatives of it have indicated it was not based on any formula, it was not thought out logically. So that we should not be teasing and tantalizing African-Americans. We are in trouble in the city. We need action now. We've had far too many studies, too many analyses, too many suggestions.

And if the board was serious about that, this past Tuesday, they would have first of all, reported cash payments and suggesting a plan for payment, even though as some say, we have a deficit, we can't do anything now. Well, deficits don't (inaudible). And even in Germany, the Germans pay by installment. I'm looking for, and the NAACP is looking for real action and not intentionality.

We've talked too much about reparations. In fact, it was NAACP branch that introduced the idea in 2019. So, we can't be like Jack in the pan, making tracks but getting nowhere. Even this U.S. Congress of this nation has not acted on reparations in principle. And 70 percent of the nation are against it.

Now is the time for all fair-minded, informed, loving, just citizens to join us as African Americans, as supporters, as we supported reparations for the Japanese, and for the Jewish community. That's the bottom-line issue. We are not against cash payments. What we want is sincere action and not optics. And this is what people --

CAMEROTA: So, you don't think this is -- so -- so sorry to interrupt, but you don't think this is a serious proposal by the board of supervisors?

BROWN: It's not on the board. What has happened, the board has not acted. It was a representative of the task force, who threw out this number without any basis for it. And people are entitled to their opinions. But on issues like this, you need facts and you need practicality. And that's the only thing the NAACP is looking for, real action and not suggestions.

CAMEROTA: Thank you. Dr. Brown, I really appreciate you clarifying all of that for us and explaining your position and what you're hoping for in the city of San Francisco. Thank you very much for your time tonight.


I want to hear what my panelists have to say about this. Let me just put up for you what the proposal is because it isn't just the $5 million per person. So that's one of the suggestions, as Dr. Brown just said, a $5 million one-time lump sum payment to every black resident in San Francisco.

Or elimination of debt and tax burdens, or guaranteed annual income for at least 250 years, $97,000 in 2022, and or affordable housing. So, Jessica, where do we begin with this? I mean, does any of this sound good or even realistic?

JESSICA WASHINGTON, SENIOR REPORTER, THE ROOT: Okay, I think this $5 million potential payment lump sum to as many black residents as they qualify is unlikely to happen. The city does have a massive deficit. So, that's just not likely to happen anytime soon. But this is just one of 100 different parts of this plan. And so, I think people are really jumping on this $5 million loan payment --

CAMEROTA: Because again, it's exciting.


CAMEROTA: It's true -- it's Oprah (ph) saying, and you get a car, a you get a car, like that's such an exciting number and it's such a high number. And it makes sense, like that's an easy one. One-time lump sum payment, we all understand it. But it's just -- I mean, I hear what Dr. Brown is saying. It sounds so good, why did they include that? Why do they throw that out there if it's never go to happen?

WASHINGTON: I think that's a fair point. I think part of it is you try and move needle, right. So, if you can get people to this idea that actually this is how much the pain and suffering of African- Americans is worth in this city. This is what we would do if we could dream as big as we possibly could. This would help balance the scales.

I think maybe that's where they're going with that number, and then you say, here is some other proposals that could actually get done. Because they're also talking about tax credits, business grants, affordable housing programs. So, there's a bunch of different things mixed into this list. And when you just focus on the $5 million, it gets a little dicier, especially just because it's not super realistic.


SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: If there is a bright center of the universe were all good ideas come from, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is as far from that place as you could possibly be. This -- a great gotcha question in politics is, can you define woke? Well, let me just tell you, exhibit A, this is the wokest, craziest thing that you could possibly imagine.

And had you put the details of it up on the screen without telling me the city, I would have guessed it on the first try. Because only San Francisco could come -- the worst managed city in America, maybe, other than, you know, a couple of others we could talk about later on the show, but it's when the worst.

And if I lived there are knew someone who live there, had family there, I'll be telling them to get a real estate agent somewhere else. Lord, have mercy. This is divisive, it's unrealistic, and I can't even begin to imagine.

CAMEROTA: What do you think the right number is, Scott?

JENNINGS: Zero! The right number is zero. The reverend said 70 percent of Americans don't agree with this idea. Well, there's a reason for that. Because 70 percent of Americans don't think it's fair. They don't think it's right. And they think there are better ways for this country to provide opportunity to everybody. And everybody does deserve opportunity. But this is divisive.

DEVAL PATRICK, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: I think the $5 million number, you know, embedded in this list of 100 ideas, had exactly the impact that the advisory board intended with -- to have a sensational number. I don't know if the number is zero, Scott. I will tell you, honestly, I struggle a little bit with the whole concept of reparations not because I think reparations are wrong or because I think reparations without reconciliation are really meaningless.

There is a conversation we have to have. There is an understanding that we have to arrive at about not just our history, but our present. And how it is we share this America, and why it's important that we share this America. And that we deal with all of the barriers for whomever is experiencing those barriers to the fruits and the promise of this America.

That work, I think, is worthy work. I don't think it's right to call that work woke and dismiss it. I think that's important, patriotic work. I really believe that. And whether that then enables or makes possible financial compensation in this, you know, taking from among these ideas or others, I think remains to be seen.

CAMEROTA: Yes. PATRICK MCENROE, FORMER PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: I couldn't have put it any better than the governor, okay. He is spot on. But what I will say, to Scott's comment, they made it divisive for a reason, exactly the point. That's to -- look at all the other things they're trying to do. I agree, $5 million is too much, zero is too little, it should be somewhere in the middle. But the bottom line is there are other things that are more importantly, equality, justice, opportunity, education for people of all races, right, but particularly these people in the San Francisco area.


CAMEROTA: And if $5 million was designed to get our attention, it worked because we are talk about all of it, so thank you all very much. Okay, can you tell the difference between what's A.I. and what's not? I'm going to put you all to the test, next.


CAMEROTA: All right. Can you outsmart A.I.? Can you tell us something was written by a human or generated by artificial intelligence? Our friends at the "Washington Post" put together a quiz that will challenge all of us to do just that. So, I'm going to quiz my panelists right now. Okay, here is your first challenge. Tell me, did A.I. write this real estate listing or was this written by a real human?

This is a stunning three-bedroom, two-bathroom Victorian house in the inner Richmond neighborhood of San Francisco. The renovated 1,600 square foot home has modern amenities, while still maintaining classic charm.


The house features new hardwood floors, a spacious kitchen with top- of-the-line stainless steel appliances, and garden bathtubs in the bathrooms. Okay, you get the point. All right, go ahead Jessica, is that A.I. or a real human being?

WASHINGTON: I am going A.I. and I will feel very bad if I'm wrong and I insulted anyone, but I'm going A.I.

CAMEROTA: Okay, go ahead Scott? A.I. or --

JENNINGS: Only A.I. would sell San Francisco this hard.


JENNINGS: Because no human being could morally or ethical --

UNKNOWN: Why would you give him an opening like that?


CAMEROTA: I like the --

UNKNOWN: Why would you set that up, Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Well, done, as we begin our last segment, I like that. Okay, go ahead, Patrick.

MCENROE: I'm going to say this was actually written by a person.

CAMEROTA: Okay, got it. Governor?

PATRICK: Yeah, I'm voting with this side of the room.

JENNINGS: So, it's two for two Patrick's.

CAMEROTA: The two Patrick's are wrong. It was A.I. You guys win.

UNKNOWN: Give us the next one.


JENNINGS: A.I. has no morals.


CAMEROTA: Okay. Okay. Here's the -- here's the next one. We're going to put up a photo. This is of people watching a space launch. I don't know which one. There it is. Okay. Is that A.I. or is that a real photo?

PATRICK: That is unviewable from this distance.

UNKNOWN: It's almost seems real. I think it's real.

CAMEROTA: Okay. You think it's real. Governor can -- do you have a sense or it's too far away for you to see.

PATRICK: I don't think it's real.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Jessica?

WASHINGTON: I think it's real.


UNKNOWN: I think real on that one.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Only the governor is right. That is A.I. Okay. So, in other words, it can not only write a real estate listing. It can also take a fake photo that tricks us all. Okay, here is a product. This is a puffy purple headband.


Did A.I. create this puffy purple headband? Jessica?

WASHINGTON: I want to say it's real.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Go ahead, Scott. JENNINGS: I think it's real because I saw McEnroe wearing this in the

green room.


CAMEROTA: Yeah okay.

MCENROE: That's definitely real.

CAMEROTA: Because you have it.

MCENROE: Because I have it. (Inaudible).

CAMEROTA: Governor?

PATRICK: I thought it was a bracelet.

CAMEROTA: No, it's a headband.

PATRICK: That is -- that is real.

CAMEROTA: Okay, you're all wrong. That is A.I. I think you're getting the point.


MCENROE: It's obvious I'm extremely gullible. That's what --

CAMEROTA: Well, no. It's obvious that A.I. is taking over the universe. I mean, isn't that what we're getting from this? It can make a headband.


CAMEROTA: It can do a real estate listing. It can fall in love with you as we've heard before. I mean, it's taking over every single week. There's some sort of new development. I mean --

PATRICK: I had a student come into me, class I teach, student in my class who came in and he said, you know, the assignment you've given is to write this 750-page thing, and here's the subject, and he said I'm going to -- I'm going to ask Chat --


PATRICK: -- GPT to do it while you're here. And it wrote a coherent --


PATRICK: -- essay using quotes from me from writings that, you know --

CAMEROTA: But would you have been able to suss it out? If he hadn't shown you the process, would you have been able to suss out that something was a little off about it, or no? PATRICK: Frankly, no. And I said to him, I'm watching you, but it's

worrisome, you know.

CAMEROTA: I think so too.

PATRICK: You hear this a lot in my students. They're using this as a --

JENNINGS: One of the five of us is actually not a real human being.

UNKNOWN: That's right.

JENNINGS: Leave it to the viewers.

CAMEROTA: And after the break, we'll quiz you on which one that's exactly right.

MCENROE: Here's the real question, though, Alisyn, before we go. Can (inaudible) help my serve? I want to improve my serve.

CAMEROTA: I don't know if it's mastered that yet.

MCENROE: Because I can go back to my professional career if it could.

CAMEROTA: Maybe. Maybe. We'll -- we're going to explore that, okay? Because -- and speaking of which, he was the number one tennis player in the world, and I'm not just talking about Patrick McEnroe. Until yesterday. Novak Djokovic, speaking to CNN about that and whether he regrets now not getting vaccinated. That's next.



CAMEROTA: Tennis great Novak Djokovic is no longer the number one player in the world. He lost the title by missing the tournament at Indian Wells in California after refusing to get vaccinated for COVID- 19. Djokovic is barred from traveling to the U.S. so he will also miss the Miami Open this week. And he tells CNN in an exclusive interview if he now regrets not getting vaccinated.


NOVAK DJOKOVIC, PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: No, I have no regrets. I've learned through life that regrets only hold you back and basically make you live in the past, and I just don't want to do that. It's a pity that I wasn't able to play Indian Wells, Miami. I love those tournaments. I had plenty of success there, but at the same time it is -- it is the conscious decision I made and I knew that there was always a possibility that I won't go and it is the current state or current situation that I hope will change for later this year for the U.S. Open. That is the most important tournament for me on the American soil.


CAMEROTA: Okay. I'm back with my panel now. Patrick --

MCENROE: Let me guess, you're coming to me first.

CAMEROTA: I'm coming to you first, because you know a thing or two about tennis. No, I'm going to come to you more often first.

MCENROE: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: But for this one, do you fault -- I mean, he's standing by his convictions. Do you fault him for that?

MCENROE: You know, being a great champion, one of the great qualities of many great champions and all sports is stubbornness, okay. And this guy is stubborn to a fault in this particular case, but he's managed to sort of work this to his advantage. I mean, he's taken a lot of heat. He's missed a lot of big tournaments.

By the way, don't believe the fact that he is not ranked number one. That's only because they didn't count the points at Wimbledon last year. That was another political issue. They didn't even count his Wimbledon point. So, if he had gotten those points, he'd be way ahead. He is by far the best player in the world. Here you see the rankings.

This young kid, Alcaraz, is great. He's 19. He's going to be the next big thing in tennis. But Djokovic is still playing like a guy who's possessed and he wants to end up as the greatest of all time and I would say it's highly likely that's going to happen.


And he will be back in the U.S. we all think for the U.S Open, which of course, is at the end of the summer, because at that point, we think the government will have lifted all the restrictions. But I think the government was in a bind here. They couldn't really give him exception. They would have taken a lot of heat for it. So, I understand why he did -- why they did it. But it would have been nice to see him playing in these two big tournaments.

CAMEROTA: Guys, we're out of time, and I'm really disappointed about that because Jessica was the captain of her high school tennis camp. And I did really want that.

MCENROE: And Scott was smirking at you.


JENNINGS: Let me tell you about the millions of people that come into this country every day vaccinated.

CAMEROTA: Oh my, gosh. I can't believe we don't have an entire hour to talk about this. Thank you all very much. Okay. What do Republican voters think about the investigations into Donald Trump? We'll tell you, next.