Trump's New Explanation For Firing Flynn Raises Questions; CNN Team Recounts Uncovering Migrant Slave Auctions
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- has been shown no collusion -- no collusion.</s>LYNDA KINKADE, CNN ANCHOR: A confident White House after what be described as a Russia investigation bombshell. A member of Donald Trump's transition team pleads guilty to lying the FBI of the contact with Russian officials. This hour, we look at what this means and what could happen next. Also, talking to both sides in a divided city. We hear from residents of Jerusalem as the U.S. considers a major change in policy. Plus -- Ages, beauty in age-old ruin. The musical moment in one of the Middle East's treasures. That's just ahead. Hello and welcome to CONNECT THE WORLD, I'm Lynda Kinkade in Atlanta, filling in for Becky Anderson. Good to have you with us. We begin with serious questions in the Russia investigation about what U.S. President Donald Trump knew and when. After changing his story about why he fired his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, on the heels of Flynn's guilty plea. Mr. Trump tweeted, "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pleaded guilty to those lies, it is a shame because his actions during the transition will lawful it was nothing to hide." Well, that tweet has many raising concerns about obstruction of justice because the President Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI at the time, why then would he try to pressure former Director James Comey, into dropping the investigation? This Comey claims he did under sworn testimony. But Mr. Trump is firing back on Twitter, writing a short time ago, "I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, just more fake news covering another Comey a lie. CNN's Boris Sanchez has more on all of these developments.</s>BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Russia investigation and the dismissal of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, likely the last thing that the White House wanted to be talking about just hours after their first major legislative victory in passing tax reform. But with a swift tweet, the President has raised serious questions about what he knew and when he knew it. In this tweet, the President suggests that part of the reason that he fired Michael Flynn as national security adviser was because he knew that he had lied to the FBI. That raises serious questions possibly about obstruction of justice if after all the President, as has been reported, asked former FBI Director James Comey to get rid of the investigation into Michael Flynn. Further, it also raises questions about the White House's efforts to distance themselves from Michael Flynn, efforts on Friday calling him a former Obama administration official and also making the case that President Obama approved of Michael Flynn's conversations with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, to discuss a sanctions of the reaction from Democrats was swift including this tweet from Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He responded to the President's initial tweet writing, "If that is true, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to fire Flynn? Why did you fail to act until his lies were publicly exposed? Why did you pressure Director Comey to let this go?" Of the White House has a series of questions before them, clearly something that is not likely going to go away any time soon, specifically because now there is a new New York Times report that indicates that several key figures within the Trump transition and within the administration were briefed on Michael Flynn's conversation with Sergey Kislyak before and after their meeting. And so, this investigation likely will explore where that goes and as more information continues to leak out during this investigation, it really hangs a cloud over this White House as they continue moving forward with their legislative agenda. Boris Sanchez, CNN, in New York.</s>KINKADE: Well, according to the White House journalist, reading too much into the President's tweet on Flynn, turned doubt an attorney with Mr. Trump's private legal team, says, it was simply a tweet paraphrasing a White House statement. He said and I quote, that tweet was a paraphrase of Ty Cobb's statement yesterday. I refer you to Comey's testimony before Congress about FBI view of Flynn's answers. Well, Ty Cobb is an attorney for the White House. He released a statement Friday after Flynn pleaded guilty. But unlike the tweet, it does not say anything about Flynn being sacked because he lied to the FBI. Well, CNN Legal Analyst Michael Zeldin joins me now from Washington. Michael, good to have you with us. Let's just first take another look at the President's tweet from yesterday, from his account where he indicated that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI. And yet, he never disclosed that before, and according to the FBI director, we know that Trump apparently asked him to go easy on Flynn and let this investigation go. So, with all that in mind, is this evidence of obstruction of justice?</s>MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I guess my first response is, I don't believe it to be true. I do not believe that the President knew that Flynn lied to the FBI on January 24th when the lie was offered to the FBI by Flynn. So, I don't credit that tweet at all as truthful.</s>KINKADE: Why?</s>ZELDIN: And also -- because there's no way he could have known that. The only people essentially that knew that were acting A.G. Sally Yates and she testified she did not tell him that and the FBI themselves. And there are FBI policies that prohibit them from talking to the White House about ongoing information about investigations. So, I just don't see how he could have possibly known that four days after his inauguration. So, I just do not credit that as a truthful statement. And so, it takes us to the next statement which is also something and I don't credit. Which is, that I didn't ask Comey to stand down on the Flynn investigation. I credit at the moment Comey's under oath testimony to the contrary and it that sort of corroborated by the fact that the President asked four or five other people to do the exact same thing that he asked Comey to. So, I think, both of those tweets may have some psychological or political or other reasons that make the President feel good, but they are not -- I don't think, legally correct. But to your question, if they were legally correct, do they relate in any way to obstruction of justice? And the answer is, possibly. That is if you're told by the FBI that your national security adviser has lied to them and then you say to the head of the FBI, essentially, don't proceed against him. That I think is problematic legally and maybe as a brick in the wall on the broader obstruction investigation that Mueller may be inquiring of.</s>KINKADE: But isn't it possible, Michael, that Donald Trump knew that Flynn was having these discussions with the Russian ambassador and told him not to tell the FBI about that?</s>ZELDIN: You know, I suppose it's theoretical but I don't know that he would know that the FBI would be asking about that. I -- so, I credit the information that Comey -- that Flynn pleaded guilty to, where it says on December 22nd and December 29th, that Flynn was directed to speak to Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the United Nations resolution with respect to Israeli settlements and about the reaction of the Russians to Obama enhanced sanctions. I believe the President knew about that, I believe there were in discussion about that while they were down in Mar-a-Lago during the transition. And that Flynn was acting under their direction. I don't know that he with would have said, and by the way, General Flynn, if the FBI ever asks you about this lie. I don't -- you know, I don't credit that type of over criminal behavior to this group of people. If they did, if I'm mistaken and -- or naive in some respect and then he told General Flynn, look, this is between us, if anyone including the FBI asks you about it, lie, that's -- that's not only obstruction of justice, but it's eating and abetting a false statement which itself is a crime. That would be a very bad day for any of those people legally.</s>KINKADE: Very bad day, indeed. Michael Zeldin, so much more to discuss on this but suddenly we have to leave it there for now. Thanks so much for joining us.</s>ZELDIN: My pleasure.</s>KINKADE: While the Mueller investigation is consuming Washington in the Middle East, many are watching for what the Trump administration is going to say about Jerusalem. An official tells CNN that the State Department is bracing for potentially violent protests, that's if President Trump announces that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And that announcement could come as soon as Tuesday. Let's bring in Ian Lee for more on this, he joins us live from Jerusalem. And Ian, this, of course, is a very special city to most of the major religions. Is the U.S. playing with fire with potentially making this sort of announcement?</s>IAN LEE, CNN FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, Lynda, this is an issue that goes core to the peace process and the negotiations and Jerusalem is a symbol. It's significant to so many different religions. And so, if the President does make this decision, it could not only cause people here in Jerusalem and in the West Bank and Gaza to go out and protest. But really around the Middle East. I went to one street in particular where people live side by side, both Jews and Arabs and Israelis and Palestinians to figure out what this means for them. At one level, it's a city like any other. People sell, people buy, normal life. But Jerusalem's old city, is special, and this is the best vantage point, here on the Mount of Olives. The dome of the rock in all its magnificence, a key holy site for Muslims. Behind it, if you know where to look, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Built on the site where many Christians believe Christ was crucified. And out of sight from this vantage point, the Western Wall. Holy to Jews, supporting the mount where the temple once stood. It's not Jerusalem's significance that's in dispute, its status. After nearly 20 years divided by barbed wire, Israeli forces took control of the whole city, East and West. In 1967, the international community did not recognize what Israel called the unification of Jerusalem. Embassies stayed in Tel Aviv, and east Jerusalem was accepted by the international community as the capital of a future Palestinian State in a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. This area is called Abu Tor, and it's a bit of a rarity in Jerusalem that's because it' a mixed neighborhood. People who live on this part of the street identify as Palestinians.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Inside I am Palestinian and I'm Muslim and I'm proud about that.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I don't think it's a successful step to move embassy, from he tells me, and not the right time to do it. But the Israelis and the Americans have other agenda's that we can't change.</s>LEE: A bit further down the road, and let's talk to some folks here.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm an Israeli woman, I live in Jerusalem, I love Jerusalem.</s>LEE: Palestinians say, they want east Jerusalem to be part of their capital. What do you think about that?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't like to talk about this, I think Jerusalem is Israeli, for Jewish.</s>LEE: What are your thoughts on the United States moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great, great. First of all, it's not going to be a Palestinian country and is always was Israel.</s>LEE: Some Israelis who didn't want to be on camera told us, they don't support moving the embassy. Whatever President Trump announces, the position of the vast majority of the international community remains clear. East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory, all settlements are illegal. Their view, likely won't change quickly. Even if the U.S. embassy changed its addresses.</s>KINKADE: And Ian, of course, President Trump said he wanted to reach the ultimate deal. What could an announcement like this mean for the fragile peace process there and have you heard yet from the Palestinian President or the Israeli Prime Minister?</s>LEE: Well, it has the potential, Lynda, to be very detrimental to the peace process. We've been reaching out to Palestinian officials. And they -- we know that some of them have been in D.C. to put pressure on the Trump administration, not to go forward with this move. We also know that they've been talking to their regional partners also have them. Like Egypt, like Saudi Arabia, like Jordan, to put pressure on the Trump administration. So, that this doesn't go forward and one Palestinian official said, it calls into question America's role in being a negotiating partner for a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As far as the Israelis go, well the ruling, a government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they enthusiastically endorse this move. This is something they've been calling for a long time. For Israel, they see Jerusalem as their unified capital and they say that the United States moving its embassy helps solidify that. Lynda?</s>KINKADE: And just briefly, just on that point, no doubt many think President Trump has enough on his plate right now, why would he do this? What does he stand to gain from this?</s>LEE: Well, if he does do it, and we'll have to wait to see if President Trump does, he'll probably give some sort of reason. But this is a campaign promise that he made and it would be him fulfilling a promise. This definitely is something that is supported by his base, so he'll want to throw them a victory and it would be seen as a victory for him and for his base. Now, while it won't be a victory for the Palestinians or people who are against it, for the President, in a time of turmoil where he has, where he could probably use a victory, this is an easy one. But, when you look at the negotiation process, this is a big gift for the Israelis. Previous U.S. Presidents have said, they're not going to do this, not going to move the embassy. And that, once there is a peace deal then they'll come with that decision whether, you know, to move the embassy. But this gives something the Israelis have wanted for a very long time. Something that the United States, at least, from what it looks like, doesn't get anything in return. Lynda?</s>KINKADE: All right, Ian Lee for us live in Jerusalem, stay on cross this story this week, no doubt, thanks so much. Well, some developing news this Sunday in the Persian Gulf, the United Arab Emirates has denied reports that Yemen's Houthi backed rebels launched a ballistic missile into the country's nuclear power plant, calling the reports, fake news. The Barakah reactor in west of the Capital Abu Dhabi is not fully operational but expected to be open by 2018. A statement by the Emirates news agency whim that, "The National Emergency Crisis and Disaster Management Authority said the UAE possesses air defense systems capable of handling any threat of any kind. And the Barakah nuclear reactor is fortified and immune against all possibilities. And that it possesses all nuclear safety and security procedures that such national projects of this size require." The UAE is part of a Saudi backed coalition and it's currently waging war against the Houthis in Yemen. Aid agencies say, the humanitarian crisis that conflict has caused is one of the world's worst. Well, still to come tonight, storytelling with some very direct result. How a CNN exclusive report on human slavery prompted direct action. The story behind the story, next.