Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump Weighs on SOTU
COOPER: The breaking news in the New York Times, the headline, Mueller zooms in on Trump tower cover story. The allegation that Hope Hicks on a conference call said this about those e-mails Donald Trump, Jr. wrote, expressing his eagerness for political dirt from Russia. The e-mails, quote, "will never get out." That's what the Times is reporting. Now former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo will tell special counsel Mueller. They're sourcing it to three people unnamed. The e- mails, quote, "will never get out." Now a lawyer for Hope Hicks denies Corallo's allegation. He said she never sail actually said that. The e-mails, of course, did get out. The panel is back with us. Joining us as well is Van Jones and Jack Kingston. Jeff, the Times piece makes the point that even if Hope Hicks was suggesting that the e-mails could be kept secret, it would have been too late because copies of them had already been requested and prepared to send to Capitol Hill. Does any of that give her wiggle room?</s>TOOBIN: Well, it certainly does. And in fairness to Hope Hicks, I mean, the fact that she says that they might never get out doesn't necessarily mean that she was talking about destroying them or hiding them.</s>COOPER: Right, could have been, just, they're not going to get out, they're not going to get released.</s>TOOBIN: Right. They're private e-mails on Donald Trump, Jr.'s personal server. I don't think that this is necessarily completely incriminating about Hope Hicks. But let's remember the big picture here. The big picture is, when this story came out, the Trump administration put out a false story about the -- about this meeting in Trump tower. They lied to the public about what was going on there.</s>COOPER: Right.</s>TOOBIN: What Mueller is doing, quite appropriately, is trying to do a biography of that lie. How did they come to lie about it. And is that relevant to a possible obstruction of justice claim. I don't think Hope Hicks is the issue here. The issue is the President of the United States and what role he had in putting out a false story.</s>COOPER: Carrie, how do you see this reporting by the Times?</s>CORDERO: Well, a couple of things. So first of all, Mark Corallo is a well-known, very experienced P.R. official. And he was the spokesperson for the Justice Department in the Bush administration. So he understands how Justice Department investigations work and he understands something about the law. So I think that he will be a credible witness. The second piece is the new report's emphasis on the special counsel's focus on this June 2016 meeting might shed some light on why in recent days we have been hearing from the president's legal team, some new legal theories that they've been floating about why maybe the president can't or shouldn't or it's not appropriate for him to be interviewed by the special counsel. And that might be because if the special counsel's focusing so much on the June 2016 meeting, that events surrounding that would not be protected by executive privilege. Because, of course, he wasn't president then.</s>COOPER: Well, Chris Cillizza, the Times also makes the point that according to Corallo, he was concerned that Hope Hicks' statement was being made without any lawyer on the phone. And the president was on the phone. And therefore, attorney-client privilege could not be invoked.</s>CILLIZZA: Right. I mean, I'm echoing Jeff here a little bit, which is it doesn't strike me necessarily as a giant legal problem. It just -- this particular tidbit. It just strikes me, as you read that piece and you think, this is really the gang who can't shoot straight. The idea that you would have a conversation like the one that the Times is reporting Corallo will relay without a lawyer on the phone, I mean, it goes to all of what we know about that meeting, that June meeting. Remember, I mean, it was primarily about a relatively obscure adoption law. Well, turns out it wasn't.</s>COOPER: Right.</s>CILLIZZA: The e-mails will never get out. Well, it turns out they did. It wasn't -- there was nothing promised to the Trump campaign. Well, with turns out the reason the meeting happened was because there was dirt promised the Trump campaign. And so, you know, being incompetent is not generally speaking illegal, although I'll defer to Carrie and Jeff on that. But I mean, that's the sense that I get when you read that story, is, how is this even happening...</s>COOPER: Yes.</s>CILLIZZA: ... when this is someone who's the nominee or about to be the nominee to be the President of the United States.</s>COOPER: Yes. I mean, Jack, as a supporter of the president, to Chris' point, does it concern you that the people around President Trump did not see fit to realize, you know what, you probably shouldn't be involved in the crafting of a press release about a meeting your son went to that you allegedly know nothing about.</s>JACK KINGSTON, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN: Yes, it does. But I would also attribute this to the fact that this is a new team, a non- political team. They're not used to the nuances of politics, of the press, and the legal system and...</s>COOPER: Donald Trump is not used to the nuances of the press, you're saying?</s>KINGSTON: Well, I would have to say that they were acting like innocent people. If they were guilty and if there really was collusion and this was really a nefarious meeting, then there would have been a far more careful in the way it was handled. But I think what they were doing was, look, this wasn't a big-deal meeting. The guy was supposed to have dirt. Everybody looks for dirt on their political opponent, but you know, it looks bad to say that's what you were actually doing. Let's talk about adoption. But there was no crime here. And I think if they were doing something wrong, they would have been far more careful.</s>COOPER: Well, let me -- Jeff, let me go to you...</s>TOOBIN: Anderson, wait a second.</s>COOPER: Jeff, let me go to you. Because I remember distinctly you in the past saying, how many criminal defense attorneys in the world have argued about their client, there's no way my client would have done this, because it would be monumentally stupid.</s>TOOBIN: Right. Criminals do stupid things all the time. But what happened here is, you know, there was this meeting. They had to respond to questions about this meeting. What did they do? They lied about what went on at the meeting. That's exactly what criminals do.</s>KINGSTON: Not necessarily.</s>TOOBIN: When you ask them what happened, you lie -- they lie instead of tell the truth. So the idea that that's somehow exculpatory is crazy.</s>KINGSON: But Jeffrey, I think -- and I've got to say this, because you know, I've been in politics for many years. I think what we can do, as we politicians, as a political class is you don't tell the full story. I think adoption was one of the topics. They didn't want to tell the whole story. But that's in my opinion this is what innocent people do.</s>COOPER: But Jack, you know adoption is not adoption. You know for Russians, adoption is not the issue.</s>KINGSTON: Well, I understand that.</s>COOPER: It's sanctions. It's a code word.</s>KINGSTON: But saying this meeting was about adoption still sound better than, listen, we were really hoping and looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton.</s>TOOBIN: Yes, that's right, that's why they lied.</s>KINGSTON: But I would argue very strongly, but if they were doing something really nefarious if there was this real collusion going on, the last thing they would have done was to have handle it in the way it was handled.</s>COOPER: Van...</s>KINGSTON: And as Hope Hicks' lawyer said is, the last thing that she would have done is said we're going to, you know, infer that they were going to hide evidence, these e-mails were going to disappear. Robert...</s>COOPER: But on the one hand, Jack, on the one hand you're saying they're political neophytes, they're not familiar with the media, so but she's so smart that there's no way she would have said that. I mean, you're arguing kind of both sides here. Van, how do you see this? Because I mean, what's interesting is, we don't know if the president knew about this meeting. We don't know if Donald Trump, Jr. told his father about it. It seems hard to imagine that Donald Trump, Jr. would not tell his father hey, you know what, I got these e-mails that just said that the Russians are actually backing you and we're going to set up this meeting. Donald Trump, Jr. has said he didn't talk to his father about it. We don't know what Robert Mueller knows. Does any of this -- what do you make of this new reporting?</s>VAN JONES, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN: You know, sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be. And you can spin and you can turn and you can twist. Here is what happened. They were up to no good. They went to a meeting with Russians and they were up to no good. And then it turned out that they had to make a public statement about it, and the President of the United States was so concerned about it that he practically wrote it himself and what he wrote was a lie. You don't get involved in something and write a lie when there's nothing happening. And so, you know, it's amazing to me to hear this kind of stuff. If your teenage kids came home and said what Jack just said to you, here's what you know, your kids are on drugs or something. Something terrible is going in your family. Because this kind of stuff is not...</s>KINGSTON: Van, I'm telling you...</s>JONES: No, I am telling you, sir...</s>KINGSTON: They would have lawyered up before they responded to the New York Times if they were guilty.</s>JONES: No, no.</s>KINGSTON: Here's what we know, Van, let's get facts...</s>JONES: It's so terrible.</s>COOPER: They did lawyer up, and their lawyers were not telling the truth either. Their lawyers went forward on television and said, no, Donald Trump Jr. wrote this thing and it was Donald Trump, Jr.'s lawyers. That wasn't true.</s>KINGSTON: Well, let me say this. For two years, nearly, all we've heard is collusion, collusion, collusion, there's nothing to it. And I think that this is just the New York Times is trying to distract what's going to happen probably in the next couple of days, is releasing the memos, which are going to show some real abuses of citizens right.</s>COOPER: You think this is a plot by the New York Times -- you honestly think this is a plot by the New York Times to distract attention?</s>KINGSTON: Anderson...</s>COOPER: You think they're not reporting on the Nunes memos? That they're like keeping that hidden?</s>KINGSTON: Anderson, listen.</s>COOPER: Go ahead.</s>KINGSTON: I may have a little bit of a republican paranoia in here, in me, but when you see 75 percent of independent voters approve of what the president said last night, I could have told you a year ago the next day the New York Times was going to write something like this.</s>JONES: Jack, you sound desperate, man.</s>KINGSTON: No, I'm not.</s>JONES: For normal people who don't believe in like conspiracy theories that you know, somebody is sitting around making up stuff just because the president gave an almost-decent speech, that's not what's going on. The president lied to the country. The president's son lied to the country. The president's lawyers lied to the country. The president lied to the country about a meeting with Russians. That is a big deal. You can spin that all day long.</s>COOPER: All right.</s>KINGSTON: He did not lie to the FBI. He has not lied in a legal context.</s>JONES: Well, not yet. Not yet.</s>KINGSTON: He did not give all the information which the New York Times would have wanted.</s>COOPER: We don't know what was said to the FBI, I should point out. Anyway, just ahead, we have more breaking news on, yes, the Nunes memo. We're not hiding it, we're not ignoring it. The ranking democrat on the House intelligence committee now says the White House actually got a different copy of it than the one that the committee actually voted on. That changes were made by Devin Nunes without the committee's knowledge. We'll tell you the details on this. It's a brand new information we're getting right now. [