Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Sen. Tim Scott Backs McConnell, Reparations Not Realistic; RNC: Trump Raised $24.8M for 2020 Bid in Less Than 24 Hours; Dems Enraged After Hope Hicks Stonewalls, WH Claims Immunity; Hope Hicks Refuses To Answer Questions About Trump's WH; Hope Hicks Refuses To Answer Questions About WH; Dems Vow To "Destroy" WH Claim She Has Immunity; Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) Is Interviewed About Hope Hicks' Answers; 2020 Rivals Hit Biden For Citing Work With Segregationists; Biden: Senator I Worked With Never Called "Boy". Aired 7-8p ET
Aired June 19, 2019 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: ... in THE SITUATION ROOM. Thanks very much for watching. Follow me on Twitter and Instagram @WOLDBLITZER. Tweet the show @CNNSITROOM. Erin Burnett OUTFRONT starts right now.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: OUTFRONT next, stonewall. Hope Hicks grill by lawmakers, but the White House blocking her from talking even objecting to a question about where she sat in the West Wing. Plus, Joe Biden under fire talking about his work with segregationist senators. And President Trump standing alone defending Saudi Arabia even as a new UN report reveals shocking and deeply disturbing comments Saudi agent said on tape during the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Let's go out front.
And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, a huge stonewall. The White House blocking a key member of President Trump's inner circle from answering questions under oath. The President's former Communications Director Hope Hicks behind closed doors in front of the House Judiciary Committee today. But Trump's lawyers made sure she said nothing about her time in the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Were there any questions about her time in the White House that she did answer?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
RAJU: Not a single one?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not a single one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Not a single one. White House attorneys objecting to every question about Hicks' time in the White House. She wouldn't even answer where her desk was in the West Wing. Now, Hope Hicks knows a lot about Trump. She was one of his closest confidants during the campaign and in the White House she was at his side constantly. A close ally to the President telling me she was his emotional crutch.
Just listen to how the President talked about her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look at how Hope Hicks is doing a fantastic job. She's a fantastic young woman and I'm very proud of her.
Now, Hope Hicks is tremendously talented person.
I love Hope. She's great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And today the President made sure Hicks new was still supporting her, tweeting in part, quote, so sad but the Democrats are putting wonderful Hope Hicks through hell. Democrats say Hicks was called to testify under oath because she was a key witness in Mueller's investigation. Her name is one of the most frequently mentioned, appearing nearly 200 times in the Mueller report.
She was a key presence at major moments, including the firing of then FBI Director James Comey. Trump's role in crafting a false statement about the Trump Tower meeting and Trump's hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
Hicks today only allowed by White House lawyers to talk about one of those three topics under oath, the hush money payments. Because part of that story happened before Trump won the election. The Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler saying, "Hicks," quote, "gave us a lot of good information when she was allowed to talk." But the White House wouldn't let her talk about anything while the President was in office. Chairman Nadler tonight says he will destroy White House claims of immunity on those other crucial topics in court.
Pamela Brown is out front live outside the White House. And Pamela, the President obviously protective of Hope Hicks and tonight trying to send a very clear message. "You're wonderful. You're wonderful, stick to it." How is he reacting today?
PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, President Trump is clearly bothered by the fact that his once closest aide and confidant, Hope Hicks, is back on Capitol Hill today. One source I just spoke with says the President is sympathetic towards Hope and feel she is getting bad treatment.
As you point out, he tweeted as well calling it sad. The Democrats are putting her, quote, wonderful Hope Hicks through hell. But sources tell CNN, Erin, that Hope has distanced herself from President Trump since she left the White House not because of her feelings toward the President, but because she wanted to start fresh after being tied up in Trump's orbit for so long.
In fact, she didn't return several of Trumps calls according to the sources which prompted the President to ask aides what happened to Hope. But today on Capitol Hill Democrats peppered her with questions about her time in the White House, asking granular questions, asking her where her desk was, as you said, in the West Wing. Whether war broke out in the Middle East during Trump's presidency, she didn't answer any of those questions, citing it relates to her time.
And the White House Democrats so clearly wanted to make a point of how sweeping the immunity claim is. The lawyers have said that she does get immunity. Democrats are pushing back, saying it's ridiculous. They need her cooperation in the obstruction probe. She did though talk about her time in the campaign. She said she didn't know about the hush money payment scheme during that time, but she wouldn't talk about whether she learned about it during her time at the White House.
I'll tell you though, Erin, it seems as though her talking today to Democrats on Capitol Hill is only increasing the tension between Democrats and the White House because of the immunity claim. Nadler, as you pointed out, he's not happy about it. He said it will not stay on and he's not afraid to take it to court, Erin.
BURNETT: All right. Pamela, thank you very much. And I want to go now to one of the Congressman who's on the committee that question Hope Hicks today, Democrat David Cicilline. Congressman, good to have you back. So we know that Hope Hicks did not answer questions about her time in the White House down to the granularity of where her desk was. But she didn't answer questions about her time on the Trump campaign, so did she say anything significant in that portion?
[19:05:12] REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): Yes, the confidentiality agreement we have does not permit us to discuss what she said. But there will be a transcript release in the next 48 hours and we certainly heard some very useful information, some important information about the campaign. But, of course, what we're really interested in and to hear about what Ms. Hicks knows about the President's efforts to fire the Special Counsel and then to ask Don McGahn to lie about it and create a false document.
We also wanted to know about the President's instructions to Corey Lewandowski to go speak to the Attorney General and direct him to tell the Special Counsel to curtail his investigation and only look at future presidential elections, not the current one. In the firing of Director Comey, she was in the White House in the midst of all this.
BURNETT: Yes.
CICILLINE: Part of the President's inner circle. The White House lawyers on behalf of the President prevented her from answering any questions that related to her service in the White House making this very bogus claim about something called absolute immunity, which doesn't exist. The courts have rejected that. We don't have a king. There's no such thing as absolute immunity.
She didn't invoke any privilege. They just use this made up claim that they don't have to answer any questions, which will be rejected again by a court when we go there.
BURNETT: So I want to ask you more about what she said. But to that point first, obviously, Chairman Nadler says he's going to destroy the White House claims, destroy his word, for absolute immunity for Hicks and the White House Counsel Don McGahn who's also crucial in the White House is also preventing from testifying under oath.
But you say this is going to be easy. Look, I know it hasn't - decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama White House even argued that a senior administration official in their case shouldn't have to testify. Are you really confident that you're going to be able to win this so easily?
CICILLINE: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Look, there are certainly a claim of executive privilege for some limited discussions between executives in the administration in conversations with the president. The witness did not invoke executive privilege. The President has waived the executive privilege.
So that's what is typically relied upon to try to keep the conversations confidential. This is a new claim. This is a claim that you can't ask us any questions about any activities in the White House because we have absolute immunity. There is no such thing in the law. It doesn't exist. The time it was raised previously was rejected by the courts.
We don't have a king. We have a president who is subjected to laws of this country and absolute immunity doesn't exist. So I am confident that when this is litigated, the witnesses will be compelled to comply and answer questions. And this is part of the President's ongoing effort to cover up to conceal to keep from the American people the full truth and act as if he's somehow above the law.
We cannot allow that to happen. He needs to be held accountable.
BURNETT: All right. So, obviously, it's the White House lawyers that stopped her from answering questions. And as you say, she did give very useful information about the time in the campaign. She testified in 2018. We know before the Intelligence Committee that she sometimes told white lies on behalf of the President.
We understand that today she was asked about that. Sources tell us that and that she said she never lied about anything, quote, substantial. Do you take her at her word and her evaluation of what substantial means?
CICILLINE: Well, I think that's a very important question. Now, there's public testimony from this witness that she told what she described as white lies. I'm not sure what those are. But certainly a person who's a part of the President's inner circle and an administration that has shown repeatedly its willingness to lie and to cover up the admission of a witness that she has not been truthful even on insignificant things is important. And I think you will see when the transcript is released that there was a significant inquiry into that question.
BURNETT: Significant. Were you satisfied as to her answer?
CICILLINE: No, I wasn't satisfied with a number of answers, because I think the witness was prevented principally from answering the important questions by the Committee at the direction of the White House. And that will not stand, the court is going to compel this witness to answer.
If in fact there was ever a thing called absolute immunity, Congress would essentially have no ability to conduct oversight, because witnesses would be free from testifying, and certainly that's not the law.
BURNETT: All right. So one thing that we know in terms of some crucial topics she was involved with, which I laid out, one of the ones she was able to answer some questions about at least was hush money payments, because a lot of that happened before. Obviously, some of the what the President said about it and said that was untrue was after, but a lot of the payments themselves obviously happened before he was in the actual White House.
She has told The Wall Street Journal during the campaign that a story about payments to Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal was totally untrue, right, so she denied it. Obviously, we now know those payments did happen. So that was not true. Michael Cohen admitted it. Trump, as we now know, knew about it as well.
Now, just because she issued a denial doesn't mean that she knew that it was untrue at all. The question is obviously who told her to issue that denial? Did you get an answer to that today?
[19:09:57] CICILLINE: I think you will see when the transcript is released, that there was some inquiry with respect to those payments. And, again, we're not permitted to discuss her actual testimony but that subject matter was covered in part during the examination today.
BURNETT: All right. Well, I appreciate your time, Congressman Cicilline. Thank you, sir.
CICILLINE: Thank you. My pleasure.
BURNETT: And next breaking news, Joe Biden facing new attacks tonight for comments he made about working with segregationist senators.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not here to criticize other Democrats but it's never OK to celebrate segregationist. Never.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Plus, the only black Republican senator coming to Mitch McConnell's defense after the majority leader claimed the United States in part paid for the sin of slavery by electing President Obama. Why? And President Trump officially launching his 2020 campaign, but sounding a lot like he did last time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Thirty-three thousand emails deleted. They acid wash those emails.
Thirty-three thousand emails deleted, bleached, acid washed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: If it worked the first time, will it work again?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:14:48] BURNETT: New tonight, former Vice President Joe Biden under fire for citing to segregationist senators that he served with as examples of colleagues he could work with during an era where, quote, at least there was some civility in the Senate. The comments last night during a Democratic fundraiser here in New York and his Democratic rivals have been quick to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let's be very clear that the senators that he is speaking of with such adoration are individuals who made and built their reputation on segregation. The Ku Klux Klan celebrated the election of one of them, so this is a very serious matter.
WARREN: I'm not here to criticize other Democrats but it's never OK to celebrate segregationist. Never.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And Democratic Senator Cory Booker saying, quote, I'm disappointed that he hasn't issued an immediate apology for the pain his words are dredging up for many Americans. Out front now, White House Correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, April Ryan, Political Editor for The New York Times Patrick Healy, and National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation, Joan Walsh.
Patrick, you're here with me, so let me start with you. The senators that Biden was talking about were James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia. OK. These were segregationists and sources tell CNN that advisors had warned Biden, "Don't ever talk about these guys. These two guys, don't reference people like this."
But he did it anyway. Can you think of a reason why he would ignore that advice?
PATRICK HEALY, POLITICS EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: This is the reference points. The political reference points that Joe Biden still has through a 50-year career. He still remembers the 1970s, when he came into the Senate and you had all of these white men of privilege and power, different ideologies, but all working together, as somehow, yes, a more productive, more bills to pass, more laws to pass.
BURNETT: Well, it's like halcyon days.
HEALY: Yes. It's sort of like a version, unfortunately, of President Trump's kind of good old days. I mean, this is when things were done. This is when people with different ideologies got along together. And I think, for Joe Biden, I think he assumes that people know where his heart is, where his head is, and that people understand what he's talking about.
But the problem is that these are reference points that are so far away from where today's Democratic Party is and where, particularly, liberal voters, activists, what they want to hear from a Democratic nominee. And these kind of remarks are sort of genuine shocking to people.
BURNETT: Well, they are. I mean, they are. There could have been other examples, April, than to say, "Oh, when segregation was the policy of these guys, I could still work with them."
APRIL RYAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, AMERICAN URBAN RADIO NETWORKS: Yes. Well, I get what Cory Booker and many of the other Democratic presidential candidates are saying. But I also hear what Joe Biden is saying. What Joe Biden is trying to say is he had to work with these people to get things through.
But at that time, I mean, I remember people screaming about David Duke being on the Hill. I remember hearing names Jesse Helms, I remember Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd. We heard a lot of names that a lot of these Democrats had to work with and some of them weren't Democrats and they had to work with them to get things passed.
But for today, for today, we are a very divided nation, and it's one side or the other. And he was talking about a time when he had to work with these people. But the problem for Joe Biden is right now is that these young people, these young people who were Obama young people who helped Obama become President of the United States, they look at this as Joe Biden basically giving adoration to these people when he's not.
But we are in a different era and for him the question is, how do you bridge this gap or do you apologize because this is a big chasm right now that he's created.
BURNETT: So Joan, let me ask you to this point though, senior advisor to Biden's campaign, Symore Sanders, today tweeted, trying to explain this, "Joe Biden did not praise the segregationist. That is a disingenuous take. He basically said sometimes in Congress, one is to work with terrible or down right racist folks to get things done." Does that argument hold water? Does that add up to you?
JOAN WALSH, NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: No. I'm sorry, I love Symone, but it doesn't. I think the other thing that really, really hurt a lot of people is that he made, I guess, it was a joke. I mean we don't have tape, so we don't exactly know how it was said, but we trust The New York Times reporting and he made a joke that, "Well, Eastland never called me boy. He only called me son."
That's unacceptable. It's not funny. We know why he didn't call him boy. It was a word that he used for black people and I almost feel like segregationist is a euphemism. These men were racist. They were deeply racist and I really appreciate that April is being so kind and so big hearted and open minded about this and I will try to follow her on this.
But I also have to say a lot of people are hearing this more and more as undermining Barack Obama. The most important thing about Joe Biden right now is his standing with black voters. And when he talks again and again, as though he could work with segregationists and he can work with Mitch McConnell and he can work with even the modern Republican Party, what he's saying is or he's raising a question about why Barack Obama couldn't and I don't think he wants to be going there.
[19:20:23] BURNETT: I mean April here's my question about some of this. I mean, it doesn't come in a vacuum. I mean there are by the way members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are defending Biden's record on race relations; Congressman Val Demings, Sheila Jackson Lee among them. But there are many voters of different color who have concerns about Biden because of his 1994 crime bill stance but also because of comments he has made which is why it's hard to put this in a vacuum, comments like these.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian- Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.
I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.
He's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. They're going to put you all back in chain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: April, does that contextualize what he is saying now in a more disturbing light or not?
RYAN: Well, I remember when he made those comments about Barack Obama, talking about how clean he was.
BURNETT: Yes.
RYAN: But at that time, Barack Obama had to come out and save Joe Biden, with those comments, remember that? They're inartful. They're insensitive. He is from another time. For some, those could be Archie Bunker words. But he is from another time, but at the same time he's trying to say, "Look at his heart and look at who he is."
But this is the problem that he has. He is from an era, a bygone era, a time we want to forget and he's saying those things, he's saying that he's got this heart. You got to stop it. You got to stop it because we are now in the midst of a great divide, a great divide as America is going to be great again.
So he's got to fix his speak and that's one of the reasons why he didn't do a lot of interviews when he was in the White House, because they were afraid of his openness, his candor. Joe Biden is very different. He has to work on this. He has to work on this.
BURNETT: So Patrick, here's the thing, all of this is happening and we'll see overtime, but you have this, you have the change on the abortion, the Hyde Amendment. I mean there have been some issues that have ...
HEALY: He know he's in trouble.
BURNETT: ... right, sort of putting him back in the spotlight now in a way that he doesn't necessarily want to be, OK, all different types of reasons, but nonetheless a spotlight he doesn't want to have on him. Poll after poll though it still shows him leading against Democrats and leading against, Trump. Monmouth, the latest poll, commanding lead against Democrats. Latest Fox News poll shows him beating Trump nationally by 10 points. So does all of this add up to anything or is it much ado about nothing?
HEALY: Yes, it adds up to quite a bit with the base of the Democratic Party that right now knows Joe Biden and doesn't know a lot of these other people. Some part of that base is saying Joe Biden because of name ID when they answer these polls.
BURNETT: So you think things like these make them look around?
HEALY: It makes them look around. It makes them go into the debates next week. It go into the summer. Seeing the positive news cycles that Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg get. It definitely opens minds, but it also raises questions about whether Joe Biden is what they want for the future of America with someone who, again, has these reference points and makes comments like this.
The thing that Biden camp tells itself though, Erin, is that they're probably going to raise far and away the most amount of money in this second quarter. They're going to be far ahead of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and they see this as a long ball and the reality is a lot of us remember in 2007 Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, there were much weaker rustier candidates early on.
BURNETT: Right.
HEALY: But the Biden camp at least tells itself this is a long --
BURNETT: And Joan, as Trump has shown, people have a tolerance, first things, that they did not have a tolerance for a few years ago.
WALSH: Yes, not the Democratic base. I'm not saying that this is disqualifying or that he can't get past this. But we are not the Republican Party and Donald Trump actually lost the popular vote. So Joe Biden needs to listen to his advisors. He needed to listen to them about the Hyde Amendment. He needed to listen to them about not talking about his work with segregationists.
You can talk about other ways that you cross the aisle, just don't go back there. It's just not going to end well for anybody. [19:25:15] BURNETT: All right. Thank you all. And next, the debate
raging over reparations for slavery.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The stain of slavery disadvantaged African-Americans economically for generations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Are we talking cash payments? Plus, the RNC announcing President Trump raised a record $25 million in 24 hours. Can Democrats compete?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:30:03] BURNETT: Tonight, a non-starter. That's what Senator Tim Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate says about reparations for slavery tonight.
Scott says, quote: There is no question that slavery is a scourge on the history of America. The question is, are reparations is a realistic path forward? The answer is no.
And Scott just doubled down on this moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC): The subject of reparations is 100 years too old from my perspective. We should look for ways to grow our economy and give every single American a chance to compete.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: This is in defense of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who said this yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Yes, I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. We have, you know, tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We've elected an African- American president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Today, Senator Cory Booker and others testified in support of a bill that would study reparations proposals.
OUTFRONT now, Kmele Foster, host of "Fifth Column" podcast and partner at Free Think. And Wes Alcenat de Sa. He's got a new last name. Congratulations.
WES ALCENAT DE SA, ASSISTANT PROFESSSOR OF AMERICAN & AFRO-CARRIBEAN HISTORY, FORDHAM: Thank you.
BURNETT: Assistant professor of American and Afro-Caribbean history at Fordham.
OK. Thanks to both you.
So, Wes let me start with you.
Senator Scott says reparations are not realistic, right? And he goes in to detail, too. He says, look, you know, you can't figure out who you're compensating, who's paying for it, and this goes back to 1865.
Why is he wrong?
DE SA: Well, he is wrong because the history says something different.
So, first off, the first mistake is using slavery as an event. So, it happened and stopped there. But slavery was inspired by an ideology and that ideology is white supremacy, which we're still living with today.
The other reason why he is wrong is, did you know that for example, in 1862, the U.S. actually passed a bill that paid slaveholders in Washington, D.C. reparations for having freed the slaves? And each person was given -- was worth the value of $300 which today when I looked it up is about $7,000 per person, right?
That money came from the federal government and paid out to each slave holder. So we have seen moments where reparations were given, except it always goes the other direction.
BURNETT: Kmele?
KMELE FOSTER, HOST, "THE FIFTH COLUMN" PODCAST: I think we're talking about a contemporary context, and that is the point that he was trying to make, that 100-odd years ago, 150-odd year ago, if we go with Mitch McConnell, that there might have been a conversation to be had about reparations. But it's true that more than a century removed from that point, it's very, very hard for us to actually compensate people who were directly impacted by some of the things that transpired.
One can certainly look at the last couple of decades and look at the 1970s and 1960s and these other epochs when bad things happened to African-Americans in this country.
BURNETT: Yes.
FOSTER: But the question is what do we do about the bad things?
And it isn't obvious there is an easy straightforward solution for parsing out some sort of compensation to people based on how much they've been injured on account of blackness.
What do Sasha and Malia, what are they entitled to being the descendants of slaveholders and slaves? What do they get? How do we actually figure this out?
It's not straightforward. It is not easy. I think one of the folks who testified today, Coleman Hughes actually underscored this in comments that we know for a fact that there are very serious problems that we could be addressing. We're not talking about how we address those problems because we are talking about reparations.
BURNETT: So, Wes, what's your response to that? You know, the Sasha and Malia, I know it seems academic but it's not academic because then you get into this issue of, well, you know, what do you do with people of mixed race? What do you of people who are black but not African- American? What do you about people who were -- were abolitionists? What do you --
DE SA: Well, you know, the thing I find interesting about these responses is they're more about deflecting the actual conversation rather than actually answering how we address.
BURNETT: But don't you have to address that to figure out how much and to whom?
DE SA: You will eventually have to address the problem. As a matter of fact, we were just talking about how I just got married you have to say my last name is also not De Sa. My wife is mixed race, is mixed race black woman who is a descendant of slaves. Her grandmother actually had been the daughter of slaves.
So what would we do about that? Well, we can go through her mother's line and consider how that affected her situation as a living citizen.
FOSTER: But also we are -- we are also talking about crude and poorly thought out.
DE SA: OK, great. My friend here brought up the issue of being impractical. There is nothing about this.
FOSTER: And conditional (ph).
[19:35:01] DE SA: There is nothing about this study that's impractical. I opened with a specific example having to do with reparations.
I will also give you other examples in the case of Haiti, for instance, where they paid reparations to France rather than France reparations to them.
BURNETT: All these things may be wrong. But again, it does come down to --
DE SA: Great Britain just paid.
BURNETT: -- take your wife, take Sasha and Malia, then, so what do you do? Do they receive or pay? Or they get half? I mean it's a real question. DE SA: Great Britain paid its last payment of reparations to
slaveholders in 2015, all right? So, or this issue of it's impractical, it's 100 years ago, and we have to deal with the present, that's precisely what the bill is trying to do. Bring us to the table to have a conversation about how do we move forward --
FOSTER: I think the fact --
DE SA: -- to get there. So, if you want to talk about mixed race people we can talk about the descendants. They have descendants or people of African descent. So, those --
(CROSSTALK)
BURNETT: So anybody who is mixed race would be a recipient of money?
DE SA: Are we talking about mixed race --
BURNETT: Mixed race African-Americans.
DE SA: They -- they are all parties to this.
FOSTER: What I think we all know, especially our --
(CROSSTALK)
DE SA: Mixed race did not exempt them from being enslaved or racism.
FOSTER: -- is that racial and social construct, and this notion of mixed raceness is similarly convoluted. It's not a thing that is straightforward. It's not something we can parse out in any kind of concrete way.
(CROSSTALK)
DE SA: Are we talking about reparations or the construction of race?
FOSTER: We're talking about those things because you just talked about mixed race people and having been a descendant of Africans.
And here's the point I think perhaps underappreciated, it's the degree to which we talk about a policy that requires people who are not a party to particular crimes, particular harms being responsible for paying for those crimes. I, for example, under some schemes wouldn't be entitled to reparations. I would be responsible for paying them as a first generation American whose family wasn't -- or ancestors were no not enslaved here in the United States of America.
DE SA: Again, Erin --
FOSTER: Is that just? Is it just to require for me to pay for things that they weren't responsible for.
DE SA: This is an example of deflecting the issue.
FOSTER: That's not deflection. DE SA: But what you do is you individualize it rather than talk about
something that is collective.
BURNETT: I understand the point about collective. I get it's important to have the conversation. But ultimately, if you can't individualize it, you can't possibly pay people.
FOSTER: And if there are problems on the individual level --
DE SA: If you want to talk about paychecks to each individual, yes, you are going to have to decide who gets those paychecks.
FOSTER: And who pays.
DE SA: And you know what, that is all also practical. And how do you do it? Well, there was an interview that emerged right after slavery and the civil war, go through the documentations. You will find the families, right? Go through the D.C. papers in terms of this example I told but reparations. You will track the families.
One thing that African-American families actually did after slavery was to travel around the country because for the first time they had mobility, to seek out their families. Where they were, wherever they were. So, you can track this.
And well into the 20th century under the administration of Roosevelt, you had reporters and you had academics who went occupant in the field and interviewed descendants of enslaved people. And many of those were the last living enslaved Americans.
So, this idea that somehow you can't find the perpetrators or the people who have been affected is simply not true.
BURNETT: Well, you can find the descendants of the perpetrators which I think is the crucial adjective that --
FOSTER: You can find people who are the descendant --
(CROSSTALK)
DE SA: If you want to talk about perpetrators, did you know that Citibank is well involved -- has roots in this slave trade.
FOSTER: The current shareholders --
(CROSSTALK)
BURNETT: Ben Keyes (ph) has roots in the Holocaust. I mean, I just --
DE SA: The Lehman Brothers found some of their capital out of --
FOSTER: And shareholders should be punished for that.
BURNETT: All right.
DE SA: The capital that founded that firm --
BURNETT: We hit pause as I say, I love having you on. And this is a conversation to be continued with you both. Thank you.
FOSTER: Thank you.
BURNETT: And next, President Trump's message in 2020 sounds a lot like his message in 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are building the wall.
Folks, we are building the wall. OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Eventually. Maybe. Maybe not.
How do Democrat run against what was obviously a winning message?
Plus, a new report reveals the truly disturbing things that Saudi agents said on tape moments before the murder of "Washington Post's" Jamal Khashoggi, that has President Trump now against the world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:43:37] BURNETT: New tonight, Trump with a massive fundraising haul. RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeting, quote: @RealDonaldTrump has raised a record breaking $24.8 million in less than 24 hours for his reelection. The enthusiasm across for this president is unmatched and unlike anything we've ever seen.
The tweet coming just hours after Trump officially kicked off his 2020 bid.
OUTFRONT now, Terry McAuliffe, former Virginia governor, former DNC chairman, now a CNN political commentator.
And, Governor, welcome to CN. Good to have you.
TERRY MCAULIFFE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good to be with you, Erin. Good to be here.
BURNETT: Good to have you here in New York.
All right. So, look, you're a former DNC chair. You're one of the most prolific fundraisers of all time. So, you know how this is done, how hard it is. We don't know all the details of Trump's money and who's giving it. But $24.8 million in less than 24 hours for the president, what's your reaction to a number like that?
MCAULIFFE: That's a good haul whatever you want to say about it.
But the other thing I'd say, Erin, no matter how much money he has, he is going to have a really tough time winning re-election. If you look at the map of the country, look at the polls today, I just saw polls yesterday -- Biden was beating Trump in Texas, in North Carolina, in Florida, I think five or six Democrats are beating Trump today in Florida.
So, you can have all the money in the world. But he has a base of about 40 percent. You look at the rally last night, he's speaking to the same people. He has to grow. And he's got to reach out to independents. I think it's very hard for him.
BURNETT: OK, here is the thing though in terms of money. I know money doesn't mean anything, but it means a lot, OK?
[19:45:03] His one-day haul is four times what Biden raised in his first day, nearly, just under. And it's more than Biden raised in his entire campaign. And yet, Biden is the front runner.
Now, I know you can say, oh, look, there's a lot of people running, there's a lot of competition. But does that for you raise any yellow flags?
MCAULIFFE: Well, first of all, he is the president of the United States. So, for his re-elect, having chaired Bill Clinton's re-elect, I can tell you getting back in as president, you're going to have the ability to raise a lot of money. But our candidates are having all the money that they need to be competitive against Donald Trump.
But, you know, it's a lot of money but it's not going to matter at the end of the day. At some point, you can only spend so much money. He has a very hard time, I don't know how he could -- I mean, take Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, three states that we lost by a combined total of 77,000 votes.
BURNETT: Yes.
MCAULIFFE: And yet 92 million people stayed home in 2016. What happened? People woke up the next day and said, holy cow, how did this happen? They came out in record numbers in '17 in Virginia. The biggest pick up of House delegates in 140 years.
BURNETT: So, you think his turnout was enthusiastic and driven and in love at the time. So, in other words, you think that's kind of a cap and but on your side --
(CROSSTALK)
MCAULIFFE: Right, ours -- 92 million people stayed home, they woke up shocked the next day. They are going to be motivated.
We won the Congress last year. We picked up seven governors. He now has a record -- it's a record that on health care trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act. On education, what they are doing to the Department of Education. He has hurt our reputation around the world. He has a record now.
BURNETT: So he also -- what's interesting in his launch last night -- MCAULIFFE: Yes.
BURNETT: -- he is -- I don't know if this is what he does every time. It is consistent. But he went with some things we had heard before. Not just heard before, Governor.
MCAULIFFE: Yes.
BURNETT: Identical to before.
So, everyone look at your screen. You see him last night and you see him in 2016 or last time around. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Crooked Hillary Clinton.
Crooked Hillary Clinton.
Thirty-three thousand emails deleted.
They acid wash those emails. Never to be seen again.
Thirty-three thousand emails deleted. Bleached. Acid washed.
We are going to keep on winning, winning, winning.
We will have so much winning if I get elected.
We are building the wall.
Folks, we are building the wall, OK.
We will make America great again. Thank you.
We will make America great again. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: You laugh, but yet it worked. Will it work again?
MCAULIFFE: It worked to that crowd. Listen, you got to get 50.1 percent to win if interests two people running for president. He is speaking -- my point is he keeps speaking to the same folks, the same arguments about Hillary as emails. You know what, nobody --
BURNETT: But he did win. I mean, you know, he won. He won the Electoral College, he is president.
MCAULIFFE: Well, he didn't win the popular vote. Let's be very clear.
BURNETT: That's true.
MCAULIFFE: We lost three states by 77,000. You had Russia. You had Jim Comey. I can go through the list of things that will not be around what we had in 2016, that will not be there in 2016. And he's got a record.
And, listen, he's got to stand by the things he has done. He has turned off more than he excited. Same old folks down in Orlando. Good for them, I think it's great.
But you want to tell me how he can put to get together a coalition of folks to get 50.1 percent of the vote or the Electoral College. He can't. The polls showed that today.
Now, I'm going to be very honest with you, maybe we'll screw it up. The Democrats have been known to do this before.
BURNETT: Yes.
MCAULIFFE: You know, we got to get through our primary process, we got to be energized, we got to come together but, you know, I'd rather be us than Donald Trump today.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Governor McAuliffe, and again, welcome to the network.
MCAULIFFE: Thanks, Erin.
BURNETT: And next, a new report reveals damning new information about what Saudi operatives actually said on tape as they murdered "The Washington Post" reporter Jamal Khashoggi.
And Jeanne Moos on the struggle to get Hope Hicks to say something.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:51:47] BURNETT: New tonight, tapes. A top advisor to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia on tape referring to Jamal Khashoggi as a, quote, sacrificial animal.
Alex Marquardt is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With gruesome new detail, the report by a top U.N. official lays out how there is credible evidence that Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is responsible for the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The execution of Mr. Khashoggi was the responsibility of the state of Saudi Arabia.
MARQUARDT: The investigative team got access to hours of secret recordings from inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. It was there that on October 2nd last year, Khashoggi entered and never game out.
From the tapes, it's clear that the team of executioners always intended to kill Khashoggi. A senior advisor to the crown prince can be heard asking if the sacrificial animal had arrived.
"Will it be possible to put the trunk in a bag?" the adviser asked. "No," the forensics doctor on the team responded.
"Too heavy. Joints will be separated," he continued. "First time I cut on the ground, if we take plastic bags and cut it into pieces, it will be finished. We will wrap each of them."
"The Washington Post" journalist told he was being taken back to Saudi Arabia. Minutes later, Khashoggi is heard saying there is a towel here, are you going to give me drugs?
A struggle is heard. Followed by voices saying, "Did he sleep? He raises his head. Keep pushing. Push here. Don't remove your hand. Push it."
Despite overwhelming evidence that this was an execution that could only have been ordered at the highest levels of the Saudi government, the Trump administration has refused to back down in its support of the Saudi kingdom.
The Trump-Saudi relationship runs deep. Saudi Arabia was the first foreign country the president visited. "The Washington Post" reported that the Saudis have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at his Washington hotel.
And Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and the crown prince are close and communicate directly on WhatsApp.
TRUMP: I hate the crime. I hate what's done. I hate the cover-up and I will tell you this, the crown prince hates it more than I do and they have vehemently denied it.
MARQUARDT: The president has ignored his own intelligence community, which assessed this could have only happened with the blessing of the crowned prince. Weapons sales, oil prices, the alliance against Iran all more important than the killing, the administration has argued, even as foreign allies, as well as both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill turned against Saudi Arabia and the crown prince known as MBS.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): There is not a smoking gun, there is a smoking saw. You have to be willfully blind not to come to the conclusion that this was orchestrated and organized by people under the command of MBS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: There is now a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to block the latest effort by the Trump administration to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
Erin, the administration is going around Congress after declaring an emergency with Iran. There are three resolutions in the Senate that will now be voted on tomorrow morning.
[19:55:02] But even though they are expected to pass, there will likely not get the 67 votes needed to block a veto from the president -- Erin. BURNETT: Thank you very much, Alex.
And next, Jeanne.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BURNETT: Tonight, the Trump confidant, a few words.
Here's Jeanne Moos.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Getting Hope Hicks to talk is hopeless.
REPORTER: Have you spoken to the president at all about this testimony?
MOOS: Like a beautiful but expressionless model she used to occasionally be. Hope walked the runways of Congress silently.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The often seen, rarely heard.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Closed doors, and tight lips.
MOOS: Lips so tight, the Democrats couldn't get answers to the most basic questions about her time in the White House.
REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): Where's your office located? Objection. That's ridiculous.
MOOS: Inside the hearing, outside the hearing.
REPORTER: When was the last time you spoke to the president?
MOOS (on camera): But the guy to whom Hope spoke the most didn't even ask a question.
(voice-over): She suddenly made a beeline to the one still photographers chasing her, asked if he was all right.
Moments earlier, he had run into a water fountain as the press scrum backpedaled.
When Hope approached him, he was surprised, he forgot to get the close up.
"GQ" once named her number one on its list of the 50 most powerful people in Trump's Washington. You couldn't much closer to the president. Trump made Hope Hicks steam his pants while he was wearing them.
She's always had the aura of a sphinx.
STEPHEN COLBERT, COMEDIAN: White House communications director and wax figure of Nancy Kerrigan, Hope Hicks. MOOS: When her boss wants coaxed her on stage to say a few words, she said exactly nine.
HOPE HICKS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: Hi.
MOOS: And four words praise and gratitude.
HICKS: Thank you, Donald Trump.
MOOS: And now, she's being grilled on Capitol Hill where she hid behind sunglasses and escaped into an elevator.
But Hope springs eternal and she finally utter the single solitary word out loud to the press, as they followed her blindly to the ladies room.
HICKS: Sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
MOOS: Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BURNETT: And Anderson starts now.
END
