Skip to main content

tv   At This Hour With Kate Bolduan  CNN  August 13, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PDT

8:00 am
morning. "at this hour" with kate bolduan starts now. once again, there are tapes. this morning, a jaw dropping betrayal of trust between the president and one of his former top aides. president trump secretly recorded. that private conversation now very, very public. former contestant turned white house aide amomarosa released a ror recording that she says is a phone call with president trump one day after she was fired from the white house. >> omarosa, what's going on? i saw on the news that you are thinking about leaving. what happened? >> general kelly came to me and said that you guys wanted me to leave. >> no. nobody even told me about it. they run a big operation, but i didn't know it. i didn't know that.
8:01 am
i don't love you leaving at all. >> this comes on the heels of another jaw-dropping move. omarosa releasing what she says is a secret reporting of john kelly firing her. a secret recording, not just made in the white house, but she says recorded in the white house situation room, the safe room where the most sensitive of sensitive national security issues are discussed. for perspective, omarosa says she recorded this conversation in the same room where this iconic photograph was taken of president obama overseeing the raid to take out bin laden, where some of the most crucial american decisions have been made. in that same room, omarosa says this happened. >> it's important to understand if we make this a friendly departure, we can all be -- you can look at your time here in
8:02 am
white house as a year of service to the nation and then you can go on without any type of difficulty in the future relative to your reputation. >> in response to that, the president called omarosa a low life over the weekend and today says this. wacky omarosa who got fired three times now got fired for the last time. she never made it, never will. he calls her vicious and not smart. boris sanchez is outside the president's golf resort in new jersey where the president is wrapping up his vacation. what is the white house saying about this now? >> reporter: yeah, what we see from the white house is what sources indicated last week would be a strategy to try to draw omarosa's integrity and credibility into question. being led, obviously, by the president who called her a low life and wacky on twitter. he does acknowledge that he attempted to keep her on board at the white house because she said nice things about him.
8:03 am
we saw deputy press secretary on fox news say omarosa was only telling self-serving lies and specifically about that recording that she made of chief of staff john kelly in the situation room as he was dismissing her, sarah sanders put out this statement this weekend. she writes, the very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the white house situation room shows a blatant disregard for national security and then to brag about it proves the lack of character and integrity of this disgruntled former white house employee. sarah sanders not even using omarosa's name in that statement. i should point out that earlier today, cnn heard from one white house official who told us that omarosa's recording doesn't really present a serious national security risk, in part, because omarosa herself was never privy to any sensitive information or to conversations about delicate, sensitive information related to national
8:04 am
security. that source does indicate that this brings about more concern within the administration that other people may also be recording conversations. >> boris, great to see you. thank you so much. joining me to discuss this and the fallout now, josh dossy, "washington post" white house report reporter and samantha venagret, former senior adviser to president obama's national security council. let us begin. you have been in the situation room. if this is what omarosa says it,how doit is, how does this happen? should the conversation between john kelly and omarosa, should it is been held in the situation room? >> i don't have a problem where it was held. there are different levels of conversations that happen there. it isn't the only secure space in the white house. any room where there's classified information being
8:05 am
discussed are even classified information being delivered in paper copy form should not have electronics on it. whether it was in the swituatio room or john kelly's office, there shouldn't be cell phones. this is a national security issue. but it's also a personnel issue. presidents need to hire people that first and foremost want to mitigate, not help foreign intelligence services, getting access to our most sensitive places. the white house is doing damage control. well, she didn't have access to classified information. the rules don't hange on what you bring into a secure space based on classification. they're the same because foreign intelligence services are advanced. they hack phones. they listen in. they try it see things. that's why you check your phone at the door. >> you did that when you were there. >> i did. you leave your phone outside of any secure space, whether it be the situation room or the national security adviser's office. there's a box you put your phone
8:06 am
in. you step outside to use it. it's not that hard. >> there's also other ways of recording conversations than on a phone. that's the other thing that omarosa did not really -- she left it out there for the imagination this morning in an interview. the president's response on this, it's confusing to say the least. he calls her a low life over the weekend. tears into her in this tweet this morning. he is the one who hired her. she was at the white house because of her priefsor relationship with him. >> that's right. it's going back to 2004. the president at one point praising omarosa for making him a star, because she was so critical to the popularity of the show. you can argue that the popularity of the show certainly helped him with his status and his stature and likely helped him get to the white house. if you look at omarosa and look at donald trump, you see a lot of similarities. not only the reality show past,
8:07 am
the democrat of voting past, before she was with donald trump, she was on hillary clinton's team. we know donald trump donated to democrats. she's a master of media. if you look at the rollout of this book, you can see her brilliance in terms of strategy with the tapes, the interviews she's done. it's something donald trump has been credited with, too. the kind of way she has an interesting relationship with the truth, also something that you can say about donald trump and somebody who likes to stir up drama. he tweeted about her in 2013 basically saying that omarosa promises drama and always delivers. that's what we see, i think, with this incident. >> hold on one second. we are getting breaking news coming in. this is cnn breaking news. >> breaking news coming from "the washington post." reporting that peter struck, the fbi agent that has been a big
8:08 am
topic of conversation with regard to robert mueller's investigation, the fbi investigation into donald trump, he has been fired. shimone, what are you picking up? >> reporter: "the washington post" reporting that the former now fbi employee, head of the russia investigation at one point, the hillary clinton investigation at one point, has been fired by the fbi. he was fired on friday by the deputy director. it's not clear, at least from this story, as to what ultimately led to this decision. his lawyer confirming it for "the washington post." of course, as we know, struck has come under fire by trump, by others on the hill. his firing will probably come at a time for them when they are going go ing to essentially be happy about it. the president who has been calling for his removal, that has happened, according to "the washington post." he was fired on friday.
8:09 am
>> thank you so much. looking at "the washington post" reporting as well, let me bring many a "washington post" reporter. this is coming from a colleague on this. this is a big -- this is a very important moment. obviously, peter struck is the fbi agent taken off the investigation when the text messages were revealed off the mueller investigation. he has been open decembn desk d. now he is out. >> i'm hearing this for the first time on air. i don't know a ton. i will say, he has been a favorite punching bag for the president. the president tweeted about him day after day after day and has elevated him -- >> one of his favorite punching bags. >> he elevated him and lisa page to the forefront of conservative media, segments on fox news, on breitbart, peter struck has really been a figure of
8:10 am
particular derision. during his testimony on the hill, he tried to explain his text messages. he got in a tense debate with gop members. some on the left tried to defend him. it's clear that whatever happened with the text messages have been larger than life because of the president's ability to make it so. nonstop posts and comments about it. >> nia, let me bring you in. as josh points out, this has been a topic the president definitely has focused on a lot. this was a big deal whether the text messages came out in the inspector general report. >> that's right. you saw him testifying on capitol hill there in an explosive series of exchanges there with republicans who went after him in a very personal way. we will see what donald trump says about this. as josh said, this has been a person who has been enemy number one in many ways of the
8:11 am
president. used to essentially say that the whole mueller investigation, the mueller probe was rigged against him. now what we will see what he says. for some people that are watching this might say, was he still at the fbi after all of that. of course, he was. as "the washington post" is reporting now, he has been relieved of his duties. >> as we are talking about it, sam, when peter struck was on the hill, when he was testifying on capitol hill, it was one of the most explosive, multiple hours of testimony that i have ever seen. he defended himself saying those were intimate text messages between him and someone else and in no way did bias -- his personal opinions ever leak into, if you will, any of his work in a professional capacity, defending himself vehemently. now he is out. i'm trying -- i'm looking in "the washington post." it doesn't say -- it says he was
8:12 am
fired after these text messages had come to light. it doesn't say exactly that the reason given for the firing is not what i'm seeing yet, in the reporting i'm seeing. your reaction? >> my reaction is if he was fired by the fbi, that's not because of pressure from president trump. it's because the fbi has internal processes despite what conspiracy theorists like to say. the fbi functions, does internal reviews. the department of justice has an inspector general. likely reviewed his activity and found it violated protocol. >> josh, i'm look down at my twitter feed to see what the president says. what do you think the president does with this? >> i imagine that he elevates it and amplifies a message of him being fired. you have seen the president called for a number of people to be fired. he called for the probe to end. he called for lots of actions of the fbi and doj have not take t.
8:13 am
as times when he has had a revelation that came out that he sees in favor of him, he talked about it at length. it's hard to imagine the president would not see this as a vindication, even if it is or not. the facts are coming in. i don't know. it's hard to imagine the president won't cast this as a vindication everything i was saying, i was, this guy was fired for bad conduct. as we have seen the president often doesn't let facts get in the way of his argument of how he presents things. you have to imagine this is welcome news for him. >> let me get back over to shimone, who is learning more about this "washington post" reporting. what are you picking up? >> reporter: the other thing i wanted to add was what this means for the russia investigation. you now have an fbi -- the head of pretty -- very senior person who was running this investigation at one point. he went to work for the mueller
8:14 am
investigation. was there. he has been fired. what does this all mean for those who have been arguing that this has been a witch hunt? what does this mean for those who have been saying this needed to end? really, what does this mean for those, including the president, who have said it has been a rigged investigation, the fbi was tainted in this investigation? you have to wonder how that will play into all of this. it is certainly an extraordinary step for the fbi to fire such a senior level official at this point of the investigation. that is incredible. hopefully, they will give us reasons why they chose to do so now. we know that he had been disciplined. he lost his clearance. he had been removed from the office. it's rare that the fbi takes such an extraordinary step in firing someone. we will see what they say in terms of why they went ahead and did this. >> absolutely. from "the washington post" reporting, fbi is declining to
8:15 am
comment. struck's attorney though is commenting to "the washington post." i will read it for the context. struck's attorney says that the fbi deputy director ordered the firing on friday and says even though the director of the fbi's office that normally handles employee discipline had decided struck should face only a demotion and 60-day suspension, struck's attorney pointing this out, struck's attorney saying it undercuts the fbi's assurances that struck would be afforded the normal disciplinary process. there seems to be back and forth in this. joining the conversation right now is cnn legal analyst, jennifer rogers and glen kershner. let's talk about this as this breaking news is coming in. jennifer, what do you think of this? >> you know, look, i think he has been fired. the fbi doesn't want him anymore. he is not going to get back in there. he was taken out of this
8:16 am
investigation and really anything having to do with anything other than personnel matters. i don't think it matters as a practical matter. he wasn't working on anything of importance anyway. he may have legal action, depending on whether he was fired properly, whether he had due process. i think for mueller and his team, it takes someone out of the way who was still a distraction. not that they had anything to do with this. they need to focus on what they are doing. the fbi needs to move ahead with what it's doing. it's too bad if he wasn't treated fairly. he may work that out in civil litigation. everyone else needs to move on from this. >> glen, hold on. i want to get back to shimone. he is getting more information. >> we have a statement now from peter struck's attorney essentially confirming the firing. said it happened on friday afternoon. they were informed by the deputy director of the fbi. according to the statement, they say that the deputy director overruled the fbi's office of
8:17 am
professional responsibility, also known as opr, and departed from established precedent by firing peter struck. they say he is a 20-year -- 21-year veteran. the statement says this doing so, the deputy director reversed a decision of the caren reer fb official who concluded through an independent review process that a 60-day suspension and demotion from supervisory duties was the appropriate punishment. again, as i said earlier, this is an unprecedented -- it doesn't happen often where a senior level of the fbi is fired like this. obviously, we have had other senior level people fired in andrew mccabe, another person part of this investigation now fired. this is a departure. contradicts the testimony to congress and his assurances that the fbi intended to follow its
8:18 am
regular process in this and all personnel matters. clearly here, the attorneys here saying that they did not follow standard procedure. they will have questions. certainly, others will have questions. a significant development in this entire story and this entire investigation and what he meant to this politically and legally in this investigation now fired. i want to point out, peter strzok was an 20-year -- he led these investigations for all these years. he has now been fired. >> that's an important perspective. just want to get your reaction, glen. with everything reporting, what the attorney is saying, does this come as a surprise to you? >> i think we have to wait and see the facts before we can
8:19 am
decide whether it comes as a surprise. the attorney is somebody that i worked with at the u.s. attorney's office if washington, d.c. years ago. he is a fine attorney. i'm a little troubled when i hear him issue a statement that suggests that perhaps the fbi didn't follow protocol and procedures in reaching the decision to fire him. i hope that's not the case. of course, mr. goldman is representing his client right now. that's why we have to wait and see the facts. we have seen that when the fbi or other high leaders of our institutions depart from standard policies and procedures, problems ensue. i think all of this ultimately will end up being a footnote to the larger question, which is, agent strzok said inappropriate things in his text messages. when bob mueller found out about that, he cut the man out like a cancer. he said, you are fired. this is bob mueller as somebody who knows how to conduct an ethical investigation.
8:20 am
when he decided that he was inappropriate to be part of the investigation into russian collusion, he cut him out and he did it definitively. that's what i think heartened . >> what questions do you have now, jennifer? it seems everyone has a lot of questions -- the fbi is not commenting. who knows if the fbi will. we often hear, we don't comment on personnel matters. the fbi might not comment. i don't know. what questions do you have? >> the question really at this point -- we know he did something inappropriate with the text messages. really the only question is, has he gotten his due process? has he been treated as he is guaranteed to be treated by the fbi? that's the only question here. we all know that he actually did something wrong. we will have to see how that plays out, whether he gets some sort of relief from a lawsuit or unemployment action related to
8:21 am
that. at the end of the day, he is out. i think he is not getting back in. i think mueller and his team and everyone else is going to move on. >> i was mentioning earlier the hours and hours of testimony that he offered before congress a while back. it was a remarkable hearing, all from beginning to end, we could say. here is one of the moments that was memorable. this is from his july 12th testimony. speaking with -- answering questions kind of sort of with gowdy on the committee. listen to this moment. >> my testimony, what you asked and what i responded to, was that he kicked me off because of my bias. i'm statementing it's not my understa bias. it was done based on appearance. i don't appreciate what was originally said being changed. >> i don't give a damn what you appreciate.
8:22 am
i don't appreciate having an fbi a agent working on two major investigations with animus. >> do you think testimony like that contributes so the fbi's decision that we see now? >> i think everything that agent strzok said during that hearing factored into the fbi's decision. i would agree that i hope he was treated fairly, notwithstanding the horrendous decisions he made early on. i hope he was treated fairly by the leeadership and they acted accordingly. we have to wait for the facts to come in. we need our institutions to follow policies and procedures. >> at this moment, here is one of the facts that we know. according to "the washington post," the fbi agent, peter,
8:23 am
strozst strzok fired. more coming up. coming up for us, we are following this. the big backtrack from rudy giuliani. the president's attorney now claiming that donald trump never told james comey to go easy on michael flynn, even though giuliani said the opposite a month ago. intentional, unintentional? what is going on? we will be right back. still nervous about finding a new apartment? yeah... but popping these things really helps me...relax. please don't, i'm saving those for later. at least you don't have to worry about renters insurance. just go to geico helps with renters insurance? good to know. been doing it for years. that's really good to know. i'll check 'em out. get to know geico. and see how easy homeowners and renters insurance can be. now t-mobile has unlimited for the rest of us. unlimited ways to be you. unlimited ways share with others.
8:24 am
unlimited ways to live for the moment. all for as low as 30 bucks a line. unlimited for you. for them. for all. get unlimited for as low at 30 bucks per line for four lines at t-mobile.
8:25 am
8:26 am
if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb.
8:27 am
tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. my ci can worry about it,ine. or do something about it. garlique® helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally. and it's odor free. and pharmacist recommended. garlique.® which rudy giuliani are you supposed to believe? rudy giuliani right now doesn't seem to agree with rudy giuliani. here is august rudy giuliani, the one who says the president never discussed formery ed avad with then fb i director james
8:28 am
comey. >> the president says he never told comey he should go easy on flynn. comey says he did. if he testifies to that under oath, instead of being a dispute, they can say it's perjury if they elect to believe comey instead of trump. >> here is let's call it july giuliani, who said the opposite. >> how is he a good witness for the president if he says the president was directing him if his words to let the michael flynn investigation go? >> he didn't correct him to do that. what he said to him was -- >> comey says he took it as direct. >> that's okay. >> how do you make sense of these conflicting statements? rudy giuliani says they're not conflicting at all. >> the president didn't say to him go easy on flynn or anything about flynn. he is saying that, i am talking about their alternative. i'm saying, the conversation never took place. if it did take place -- here is
8:29 am
the conversation that's alleged -- it's not illegal to have said that. >> confused? why is this so confusing? is that the point? here with me now, again, cn this legal analyst and former prosecutor jennifer rogers and glen kirschner. is it clear? >> i don't believe any of giuliani -- >> can't wait to meet september giuliani. >> he cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. they are playing a different game than the special counsel is playing. they're playing the pub rilic relations game. confuse everybody. keep the base and everybody else confused. we will fight this out in public opinion or impeachment proceedings. you know, i don't even know what to say except that i'm kind of trying to put my fingers in my ears and stop listening to giuliani. >> putting your fingers in your
8:30 am
ears is not an acceptable response. engage. inform me. clari clarify. glen, to try to help clarify, let me play one more piece of sound from rudy giuliani this morning. his explanation today on why he is not contradicting himself, he is implementing a strategy. listen. >> so, we have three defenses to that. under article 2 of constitution, you can't question why the president would say something. he has the power to say it. number two, what he was saying is perfectly justifiable. he didn't say, you must, you have to, i will fire you if you don't. he said, consider it. number three, he never said it. lawyers argue like this -- we call it arguing in the alternative. >> is that it? >> it's clear to me now. so let me -- >> i laugh because i'm quite confused. you are greater legal minds and
8:31 am
minds in general. is this -- what did he call it? arguing the alternative. that's a thing. is it what we are looking at? >> we see arguing in the alternative in court all the time. what it usually -- let me use a murder trial. the defense will say my client did not kill the victim. if he did, he did it in self-defense. that doesn't play well. i don't think this nonsense we hear from mr. giuliani will play well with the american public or if we end up in impeachment hearings in the house. let me tell you about my experience with bob mueller and what i have drown from it. when he was my chief of homicide at the united states attorneys office for the district of columbia and i was one of his prosecutors. you don't negotiate with bob mueller. if you need a question answered, guidance, approval, you stand outside his door at 6:30 in the morning. he gives you three minutes to explain the issue. you gives you information or the answer you need.
8:32 am
it was always right legally and ethically. you don't negotiate with the man. i don't believe for a minute that bob mueller has been on the other side of this negotiation with mr. giuliani. this is all mr. giuliani all the time. when mr. giuliani says, i'm going to set the terms of the interview between mr. mueller and president trump so he is not permitted to ask him questions about what the president said to james comey about laying off mike flynn, basically, mr. giuliani is saying that bob mueller shouldn't be allowed to ask the president anything incriminating or relevant to the investigation. that's pure nonsense. as a 30-year federal prosecutor, we don't negotiate interviews with targets, which the president may have ripened into. this is nonsense. >> you are talking about the president of the united states. it's something different. this is an investigation -- we are saying like no other.
8:33 am
when it comes to the timing, does it -- it's something of a negotiation though. if they're going to get it done -- giuliani kind of confusing a little bit on that front as well. he said that if they don't sit down by september, trump isn't going to sit down at all. if it isn't done by september, the investigation should be terminated completely, he said, on fox news this morning. my question is, september comes and goes and then nothing happens. rudy giuliani then does what? >> rudy giuliani will start to say it's over. there are a couple things going on. i agree with glen there's not as much negotiating as giuliani wants us to think there is. i think there's some communication between the two about what's been going on and what will happen and so on. there's a department of justice guideline that you are not supposed to afeblg fect electio.
8:34 am
giuliani says it's a rule or law or something more firm than it is. i think the special counsel will try not to impact the november mid-terms if he can. i don't think he will issue his report a week before the elections. there's a time frame he won't do anything. >> doesn't mean he will terminate the investigation. >> correct. they would wait until a time after the election when no one could claim they are trying to harm the president and his party by proceeding right before the election. there's a lot going on. whatever we hear from giuliani again, i'm not sure that we should listen to it except -- i don't even know what. talk about it on tv. >> you are not allowed to plug your ears. it doesn't work that way. >> it makes us feel better. >> not in this reality, unless we're all doing it together and we look crazy. thank you so much. until tomorrow when i ask about giuliani again. coming up, subpoenas, another. this one is a man stone called his back channel to wikileaks.
8:35 am
does the special counsel have stone in their cross hairs? what's happening now? we will be right back. ruly hair? need a hair smoother get super fruit moroccan argan oil. with fructis sleek & shine. hair is super sleek, even in 97% humidity. no parabens. garnier fructis sleek & shine. super fruit. super hair. garnier.
8:36 am
super fruit. super hair. if these packs have the same number of bladder leak pads, i bet you think bigger is better. actually, it's bulkier. always discreet quickly turns liquid to gel, for drier protection that's a lot less bulky. always discreet. -morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch.
8:37 am
might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection.
8:38 am
8:39 am get more than just savings. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. the circle in the russia investigation could be closing in on roger stone's three people who are or were close to him have been called to testify.
8:40 am
another of stone's close friends, davis rs s, she testif last week. andrew miller, he is refusing to appear before the grand jury, defying a subpoena and he was held in contempt because of it. what does this all mean? joining me right now, former trump aide, senior adviser to steve bannon, an associate of roger stone, who testified before the grand jury, sam nunberg is here. let's talk about andrew miller. what does miller know, do you think, that robert mueller would be interested in? >> i think robert mueller is looking at stone now because this is very legitimate. he has to figure out there are so many stories out there, what was roger's connection to assua assuage, if there was one. somebody that's critical is andrew, would be randy.
8:41 am
andrew has controlled roger's schedule. he is young but a cfo type. he is organized, a ceo type. he does operations. something along those lines. he is like an adopted son to roger. >> you testified before the grand jury. andrew, he is fighting the subpoena. what would you tell him to do? >> he is fighting the subpoena on a very important issue that we in conservative legal circles have been interested in. there's a wall street journal editorial about it. it deals with the appointment kla clause. we are going over, why hasn't he, under the constitution, followed he had to get nominated by the senate. >> he think he should fight the subpoena? >> on constitutional grounds. >> do you think that any other grounds that he would be -- do you know that's why he is fighting the subpoena?
8:42 am
>> that's what happened. what happened was that he took it to the d.c. circuit court. his lawyer said that they are going to appeal this to the supreme court. he has standing because he has this subpoena. he can argue, look, this is illegitimate. >> it's something you agree -- you are with andrew miller on that point. you said you were not going to testify. then you ended up testifying. why then? >> because, one, i have nothing to hide. >> does andrew miller have something to hide? >> i don't think so. i don't know. what i think, as i said, roger stone is a critical piece for mueller. >> were you asked about roger stone? >> yes. >> what was he interested in? >> in the grand jury specifically, he was interested in as opposed to the voluntary, what roger had told me about assuage, his communications with assuage and his relationship with the campaign and then with
8:43 am
donald trump post campaign. >> stone's clearly in the spotlight. you called him -- you were close with him. >> i was. >> you called him a mentor but last week you said that stone is going to be indicted. >> this isn't something i support. looking at what mueller is doing, mueller is following -- people that don't support the special counsel, he is following the watergate model. you show this are crept aorrupt you get roger, who you can say, they will get on a sexy charge on the top of the indictment, he conspired to defraud america. i don't know how. they will put financial stuff in the back. why i suspect they want miller, why they want davis. they asked me about -- the minute i walked in they said within five minutes, who has roger worked for? during -- since you have known him, list everybody you have known. what i have heard, i can give you. >> do you believe stone or do you think that he has done
8:44 am
something wrong? >> what i think -- the only thing i think roger did wrong was he conspired against himself. what i think roger has done is he wanted to insinuate himself into this election after he left the campaign he wanted -- in light of the profile that he has -- >> you don't think he used randy to speak to assuage? you don't think he got a heads up on any leaks? >> i don't think so. when roger told me he met with assua assuage, he said there were going to be e-mails raided -- related to the clinton foundation. assuage never really released anything related to clinton foundation. >> stone in response to when you said you think he is going to be indicted, he had quite a few things to say, very few i'm going to say on television. he called you a back stabber and said you will be indicted before he ever is. is this now between you two anything more than -- i don't
8:45 am
know. >> not at all. roger can be mad at me. when i say roger is going to get indicted, i don't think this is fair. i don't think roger did anything. if something comes out that i don't know of, then -- >> have you spoken to him? >> i can't and i won't. it wouldn't be good for him and it wouldn't be good for me. i don't want to get accused -- he can get accused of witness tampering. >> you worked for the trump campaign. you worked for trump before that. >> 2011. >> have you signed an nda? >> i was sued for violating my nda. >> have you looked at the nda that "the washington post" has published? >> omarosa's? i looked at the disparagement clause. >> did yours include that? >> yes. >> you were sued because of it? >> that's what they said. we settled. >> your reaction to being offered $15,000 a month to sign an nda by the re-election
8:46 am
campaign? >> i think trump, the president and his people around him have learned -- i worked for him for 4 1/2 years. i support this president. i will never say he treated me well. i think that they have learned, we have to keep these people around somehow and keep them in the net, if we're going to let them go. part of this issue with omarosa is, i don't understand -- everybody can say she should not have recorded in the -- if you are john kelly and she's the most senior -- she's very senior in the west wing and african-american. how could you not have met with her until you wanted to fire her? >> i'm interested in your take on the nda. was this -- this was -- you don't seem surprised that this nda was out there. you think -- does everyone sign these? >> everyone was asked to sign. when i worked for them until i went in as the first permanent hire, i never had an nda.
8:47 am
i didn't look at the nda when i signed it. i would never think i said anything. i never said anything disparaging about his business or family. there's a distension without a difference for him. i'm not surprised. they have been doing these ndas. some political campaigns have them, by the way, but not a lot. >> thanks for coming in. always a lot of questions. i appreciate your time. coming up, medically kidnapped. that's what one family says happened to their teenage daughter at the world famous mayo clinic. the shocking allegations, the story now coming out. we will tell it to you. we'll be right back. woah! (laughter) hahaha-aaaahhhh! gorilla glue. of course. gorilla glue expands into the materials to form an incredibly strong bond. for the toughest jobs on planet earth. this school year, get a new iphone from t-mobile and keep your whole family connected. or keep tabs on them.
8:48 am
he skipped orientation for the beach? he takes after me. join t-mobile, buy an iphone 8, get an iphone 8 on us.
8:49 am
8:50 am
8:51 am
it is a shocking accusation that the world fay mow mayo clinic would medically kidnap a patient, but a teenager accuses the hospital of keeping her there against her will. elizabeth cohen is joining me now with more on this.
8:52 am
liz bet what is this about? >> kate, she was 18 years old when she says the mayo clinic saved her life and then wouldn't let her go. alyssa and her family say they experienced the seemingly unthinkable. in this e-mail to police, alyssa's mother says her 18-year-old daughter was medically kidnapped by the world famous mayo clinic. >> do you think they were trying to medically kidnap you? >> yes, i completely do. not a doubt in my mind. >> this was alyssa on christmas eve in 2016 with her family in minnesota. on christmas day, a blood vessel burst inside her brain. she had emergency surgery at the mayo clinic. doctors gave her a 2% chance of surviving. >> how did those neurosurgeons do? >> fantastic. >> phenomenal. >> they saved her life. >> reporter: after a month, she moved to the rehabilitation unit at mayo with new doctors. >> when you had opinions or
8:53 am
thoughts about alyssa's care, did they listen to you? >> no. >> i don't feel they did at all. >> did thatey seem annoyed with you? >> yes. >> because we were parent, not the doctors. they knew everything, and we didn't. >> reporter: the tension eventually exploded, and mayo kicked alyssa's mother out of the hospital after they say she interrupted a meeting. in a statement, mayo told us family members may be restricted in situations where care may be compromised or the safety and security of our staff are potentially at risk. alyssa's mother said she didn't do either. alyssa begged for her mother. >> she'd cry. >> was that tough? >> very. >> reporter: alyssa says she finally had enough. >> did you want out of the mayo clinic? >> as bad as possible, yes. >> reporter: but what happened next is alarming. alyssa and her parents say mayo wouldn't let her go. >> did you ask to have her
8:54 am
transferred to another hospital? >> we did. >> and what did mayo say? >> they said no. >> reporter: a lawyer even wrote this letter asking for an expedited transfer to another hospital. >> it felt like you weren't from a healing place to a prison. >> reporter: so alyssa's parents hatched an escape plan. they pulled a trick on the staff to get her out of mayo, and they documented it on video. they told them that alyssa's grandma betty had come to visit but was too frail to come inside the hospital. so alyssa had to come to her. but when they arrive at the car, there's no grandma betty. it's alyssa's mother. watch as a nurse's aid grabs alyssa's arm. >> come on, honey. we're going home. >> how did it feel the minute you hopped into your parent's car? >> a relief. like the biggest weight off your
8:55 am
shoulders. it was phenomenal. the longer i'm away from mayo clinic, the better. >> reporter: after alyssa left, mayo called 911 and said they'd had a patient abduction, but rochester police tell cnn that mayo was wrong. they said alyssa was 18, an adult making a legal choice to leave the hospital. >> there was no abduction. there was no violation of law. essentially, you had a patient that left the hospital under their own planning with the assistance of family members. >> reporter: months later, alyssa and her family learned a secret while looking at police records. just before alyssa escaped, a mayo social worker had tried to get court orders for emergency guardianship for alyssa. >> if you had not gotten alyssa out of the mayo clinic, where do you think she'd be? >> she would not be in a good place. >> i think it would have been the end of us ever getting to
8:56 am
see alyssa again. >> reporter: so why was mayo trying to get emergency guardianship for alyssa? a county official told police that the mayo clinic was concerned for the medical decisions being made for alyssa. alyssa signed this privacy release form so mayo could speak freely to cnn, but mayo wouldn't answer our questions on the record. we will not address these questionable allegations or publicly share the facts of this complex situation because we do not believe it's in the best interest of the patient and the family. our internal review determined that the care team's actions were true to mayo clinic's primary value, that the patient's needs come first. we acted in a manner that honored that value for this patient. alyssa and her parents think mayo was trying to get guardianship in retaliation for questioning doctors. >> alyssa says despite everything that happened, she says she'll always be grateful to the mayo clinic for saving her life. kate? >> elizabeth, how is alyssa doing now? >> she's doing really well, kate. in march, she stopped her
8:57 am
physical therapy and her speech therapy. she didn't need it anymore. and she's starting college next month. >> wow. that's at least great to hear. thank you so much. thank you for bringing us that story. coming up for us, more on our breaking news. the fbi fires enbattled fbi agent peter strzok. what does it mean for the russia probe moving forward? what's the reason behind the firing? much more after the break. ♪ flintstones! meet the flintstones. ♪ ♪ they're the modern stone age family. ♪ ♪ from the town of bedrock. ♪ meet george jetson. ♪ ♪ his boy elroy. with instant acceleration, electric cars are more fun to drive and more affordable than ever. electric cars are here. plug into the present.
8:58 am
8:59 am
now t-mobile has unlimited for the rest of us. unlimited ways to be you. unlimited ways share with others. unlimited ways to live for the moment. all for as low as 30 bucks a line. unlimited for you. for them. for all. get unlimited for as low at 30 bucks per line for four lines at t-mobile.
9:00 am
welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. breaking news today. the fbi fires the agent whose text messages are exhibit a to president trump and his allies who claim a deep state bias in the russia meddling investigation. plus, talk about a jury of your peers. the president, who lies constantly, and the top aides who lie constantly for him today say the former apprentice star omarosa, you guessed it, is lying about a white house culture of mistrust and back


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on