Return to Transcripts main page


Clinton: Trump "Temperamentally Unfit" For W.H.; WSJ: Trump Keeps Up Attacks On Judge Curiel; Sen. McConnell: Trump's Attacks On N.M Gov. A "Big Mistake"; Sen. McConnell: Trump Should Unify The GOP, Not Attack People; Awaiting Trump Rally, Protesters Gather Outside; Medical Examiner: Prince Died Of Opioid Overdose; Medical Examiner: Prince's Death Caused By Fentanyl Toxicity. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired June 2, 2016 - 20:00   ET


[20:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, AC360, HOST: Good evening. Thanks for joining us.

A very busy two hours ahead including Dr. Drew Pinsky on the test results confirming Prince died of an opioid overdose. Also, the UCLA shooter, the new victim found in the kill list he had. Plus, after holding out for weeks, the nation's top Republican lawmaker endorses Donald Trump. We begin, however, with the complete opposite with Hillary Clinton's point by point deconstruction of Donald Trump's views and positions as well as her flat out denunciation of his fitness for office.

Now, agree or disagree and you'll hear both sides tonight her speech this afternoon in San Diego was intended to draw the starkest contrast possible between herself and Donald Trump. Here are some of the major moments.


HILLARY CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe the person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job. Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different, they are dangerously incoherent. They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies. The stakes in global state craft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels. We all know the tools Donald Trump brings to the table, bragging, mocking, composing nasty tweets. I'm willing to bet. He's writing a few right now.

His proposal to ban one and a half billion Muslims from even coming to our country doesn't just violate the religious freedom our country was founded on. It's a huge propaganda victory for ISIS and it alienates the very countries we need to help us win in this fight. A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS. We cannot take that risk. This isn't reality television, this is actual reality. And defeating global terrorist networks and protecting the homeland takes more than empty talk and a handful of slogans. It takes a real plan, real experience and real leadership.

And I have to say I don't understand Donald's bizarre fascination with dictators and strong men who have no love for America. He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre. He said it showed strength. He said you got to give Kim Jong-un credit for taking over North Korea, something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat including his own uncle which Donald described gleefully like he was recapping an action movie. And he said if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he'd give him an A.

Now, I will leave it to the psychiatrist to explain his affection for tyrants and that brings me to the final point I want to make today. The temperament it takes to be commander in chief. Every president faces hard choices everyday, with imperfect information and conflicting imperatives. That's the job. Now imagine, Donald Trump sitting in the situation room, making life or death decisions on behalf of the United States. Imagine him deciding whether to send your spouses or children into battle. Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he is angry but America's entire arsenal. Do we want him making those calls, someone thin-skinned and quick to anger who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the button? Because making Donald Trump our commander in chief would be a historic mistake.


COOPER: Secretary Clinton this afternoon, joining us now CNN Senior Political Correspondent, Brianna Keilar. This was a very different speech than any other she's given today wasn't it?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It certainly was Anderson. This was scathing, sort of a scorched earth approach to Donald Trump's foreign policy position, certainly much more his temperament. She also talked about the economy. So it went far beyond specific policy positions. But this was her attempt to comprehensively do a rebuke of almost every controversial thing that he has said in the primary. Over and over she used Donald Trump's words, she was quoting him. She's going to try to make that stick, she's going to revive that and try to keep that fresh in the minds of Americans as she goes forward here.

COOPER: Is this a template for what we expect to see from her moving forward?

KEILAR: It certainly is. In fact, I was talking to an aide who said this is the framing speech. So this is not only the biggest foreign policy speech of her candidacy but this is the framing speech for what she's going to be doing for the next five months.

[08:05:06] So we'll be seeing some on hearings, some of what she said today I think on her stamp speech as she's going forward. This is something that her campaign thinks is going to really embolden Democrats and you could tell by what we saw today this was almost a roast at times. You heard (inaudible), boos, standing ovations, cheers. And this is something that they think is going to really embolden Democrats on the stamp. But they're also trying to get at those moderate Republicans who have not gotten behind Donald Trump. They believe that a lot of them have not aligned themselves to Donald Trump because they are worried about foreign policy. So this is a really her play for a wide swathe of the folks who were going to be voting in November.

COOPER: Oh, Brianna Keilar, Brianna thanks. Donald Trump is going to speak later tonight in San Jose. It would be completely unlike him not to have something to say in response.

In the meantime, Secretary Clinton mentioned there's Twitter and there's this from Trump, "Bbad performance by crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the teleprompter! She doesn't even look presidential!" The question is, however, get her point by point critique hit home factually will it resonate politically?

Joining us is former Obama Senior Adviser, David Axelrod, is now our Senior Political Commentator, host to the Axe Files podcast in Also, CNN National Security Commentator and former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers. Retired army colonel and former Top A to General David Petraeus in Iraq, Peter Mansoor is a life-long Republican who says he's now voting for Hillary Clinton, and senior Trump adviser, Stephen Miller.

And colonel let me start with you, you're a life-long Republican. You plan on voting for Hillary Clinton, should she win the nomination largely because of Trump's foreign policy acumen or lack thereof. Did today's speech buy Clinton bolster your decision?

COL. PETER MANSOOR, US ARMY (RET.),: I think it reinforced my decision. She hit up on many of the points I've been making for the past couple of days and that I've been thinking about for the past six to nine months. The lack of temperament and character to hold the highest office in the land, his endangerment of our alliances and our allies around the world, his diminishment of America's moral standing with his stances on torture and bombing of civilians and so forth. So, I think it was a very powerful speech, and yes, it reinforced my viewpoint.

COOPER: David, what do you make of the speech? Because there isn't seem to be a lot of policy in there but it also didn't seem like new policy was -- what the point of the speech was?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, let me say Hillary Clinton hasn't had a lot of great days in this campaign. She's not terribly comfortable with some of the demands of campaigning but this is a venue in which she feels very comfortable and kind of a quasi official setting, giving a speech. And I thought she did very, very well. And I don't think it's about issues. I think she used Donald Trump's own quotations to hang him on the issue of temperament and lack of experience. I don't think any one issue was particularly important. It was the aggregation of them in a way that painted the picture of a guy who might give people pause, when you think of him sitting in the Oval Office making these mortal decisions.

COOPER: And Chairman Rogers though, I mean, by ramping up the rhetoric against Trump on foreign policy, Clinton -- it could be argued also opens herself up to attack on her foreign policy decisions. MIKE ROGERS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Yeah, and I think it does. I would caution one speech, although I thought the rhetoric of the speech was -- I know, it was so well delivered. But this is something that Trump campaign is going to have to respond to, but one speech doesn't make a campaign. We are a long way from the election in November. But it does open and wrap. And, you know, you have to look at her term as secretary of state.

Now all of those issues become fair game. I mean, the fact that ISIS didn't exist when she started the secretary of state, it does now. The fact that Russia now occupies 20 percent of Georgia and has the Crimea, all of these things were things that happened over the course of her term as secretary of state. She's going to have to answer for those issues. And so I think this is just the first, you know, the first round. I think it was very well delivered. I will give her that, but Anderson this is the first round. I don't think Donald Trump is going to crawl in the bed, curl the sheets up and say well, that's it. She gave one good speech right before the election.

COOPER: Stephen has Donald Trump need to respond for the point by point to the secretary's speech?

STEPHEN MILLER, TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER: Well, I think you're going to see it tonight and I'm assuming CNN will be carrying it. I think he will respond to a lot of it. And I would note that Donald Trump did give a foreign policy speech a month ago where he laid out a very detailed foreign policy and a new direction in foreign policy. And it was kind of surprising as you noted that Hillary Clinton had no ideas in her speech. And, you know, it's interesting, we've actually been trying to steer the conversation nationally to a foreign policy debate. And so Hillary Clinton did us a huge favor by doing that. Because there's a few issues we really wanted to focus on. One was her disastrous invasion of Libya, which has now given ISIS control of the region and created a gateway for mass migration into the west.

[08:10:04] We want to talk about the Iran deal which she supports and so now that is going to be a big part of the debate. We definitely want to talk about Syria and she supported regime change in Syria and that strategy has now proved utterly disastrous and you've seen a couple hundred thousand war vet and 4 million refugees. And then of course you've seen in Iraq where she supported the original invasion, which is a big distinction between the two candidacies. But then additionally in 2011, she supported a failed withdrawal strategy that handed that over to ISIS. So in all those areas we are now having the conversation that we've been wanting.

COOPER: And colonel, do you think Donald Trump and to Stephen's point, do you hear specifics from Donald Trump that Stephen is talking about?

MANSOOR: You know, Donald Trump is all over the map when it comes to foreign policy. As far as I can tell, he's a neo-isolationist. He would withdraw America from its engagement with the world. He would unravel our alliances with NATO and in the Far East with Japan and South Korea unless they pay more for their own defense. And, you know, a lot of the allies aren't going to put up with that kind of bluster from the president of the United States. So, I see him as a very dangerous leader of the free world and I don't see a coherence to his foreign policy that makes sense.

COOPER: And David, did Secretary Clinton, and I quote from dangerously incoherent, that his ideas are bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. And when talking about the issue with Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin said I'll leave it to the psychiatrist to explain his affection for tyrants just on tone, I mean this was a very different Hillary Clinton it seems.

AXELROD: Well, she went after him hard. I mean, this was -- there was no subtlety about the speech. This was an all out assault on Donald Trump's preparedness and on his temperament. And, you know, I listened to Stephenson -- Stephen then I listened to Mike and there's no doubt that there's going to be back and forth on the substance of her record on the substance of foreign policy.

But as I said before, I think the issue that she was raising went far beyond substance. It went to how he conducts himself and when I think the issue for Donald Trump is can he develop the personal discipline so that he is not lashing out at everything that moves and anybody who insults him in a way that gives people pause when they think about him as a commander in chief. That is a big test. And, you know, we have yet to see whether he can meet it.

COOPER: Stephen, in your -- during campaigns, a lot of candidates get position paper, briefing papers, they kind of read up on things that they may not have personal knowledge of before entering the race. Does Donald Trump to your knowledge actually do that? I mean, is he reading position papers on, you know, conflicts in Iraq, on the situation in Syria?

MILLER: No, I don't think in my life I ever encounter anybody who in fact reads more vociferously. And I think that if you compare again the two foreign policy speeches, Donald Trump laid out far more specific details. He talked about calling a summit with our NATO allies, and upgrading the mission of NATO to meet the modern threats of today like Islamic terrorism rather than threats of yesterday.

COOPER: But my question though is, I mean, is he actually reading details, sort of position paper ...


COOPER:... the campaign papers?

MILLER: The answer to your -- well, the answer to your question is yes. But I do want to answer the question about temperament, too, because temperament is a test about risking American lives in dollars. And so you saw Hillary Clinton's temperament in terms of how she gave away Iraq in 2011. You saw her temperament when she rushed to invade Libya which was one of the greatest strategic blunders of the last 100 years.

COOPER: And Colonel Mansoor, it's interesting because many of the issues that Stephen brought up as criticism to Hillary Clinton, I'm guessing you probably, from my reading of what your position is, you actually are not that huge a fan of Hillary Clinton. You're a lifelong Republican, if there was another alternative, a Republican alternative that had foreign policy experience, you would vote for that Republican. And you voted for other Republicans your whole life.

MANSOOR: Yeah, no doubt. I was actually a Jeb Bush supporter during the primaries. But, you know, look, Secretary Clinton has a long track record. Some of it isn't very good. I think the invasion of Libya was ill-considered and if she wanted to follow up with that, she should have created a peace-keeping stability force to actually stabilize the nation after the invasion. But, you know, the good news is she has a long track record. She's been in the arena and she's learned from her mistakes. Where has Donald Trump been? He's been in board rooms and he's been on reality TV. And I just don't see the experience there and the foundation to be president of the United States.

COOPER: Oh, listen, I appreciate all of you joining us, Stephen Miller, David Axelrod and Mike Rogers, Colonel Mansoor, a good discussion. Thank you all.

Well, just ahead tonight, having just heard arguments on both sides, we'll dig deep on Donald Trump's specific foreign policy and national ready positions. A closer look at what the record says.

[08:15:00] Also a new details terribly sad ones in the death of Prince, it was an overdose and the drug involved is raising a lot of new questions. Tonight, that story and then our next hour, addiction medicine specialist Dr.Drew Pinsky when 360 continues.


COOPER: Welcome back. Even before Hillary Clinton began to outlining what she sees as his complete lack of fitness for office, Donald Trump was already taking aim on Twitter. "Crooked Hillary Clinton," he tweeted. "Who I would love to call lying Hillary is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions." Before the break, you heard what she had to say about those positions, and in her view his lack of qualifications for dealing with the world.

Right now, a closer non-partisan look at what his positions actually are, joining us for that, CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto. Let's lay out some of the specific positions on foreign policy that Trump has taken Jim.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: OK. So, breaking down the Trump foreign policy, it does take some work because other than his one scripted foreign policy speech that was in April, he's most notable foreign policy positions come out in mostly unscripted interviews and rallies. And even now these locked up the nomination he still lacks a sizable team of foreign policy advisers. In fact, you may remember that dozens of GOP foreign policy experts actually wrote an open letter in March criticizing several of Mr. Trump's boldest foreign policy proposals. Here are a few of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) [08:15:03] DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We must, as a nation, be more unpredictable. NATO is obsolete. It was 67 years old, it's over 60 years old. North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better of if they defend themselves from North Korea maybe it would be better off -- including with nukes. I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me. I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers and that's right. I'll blow up the pipes, I'll blow up the -- I'll blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. We will build a wall, you know, who's going to pay for the wall, Mexico. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shut down of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on?


SCIUTTO: Now, Secretary Clinton's strategy today was to kick off each of those positions as essentially dangerous or even out of whack with decades of foreign policy by presidents of both parties. But the fact is there are points at the base of some of those positions that do appeal to his supporters, even some Sanders supporters, even people on both sides, for instance making US allies carry more of the defense burden in Europe for instance or finding out a way to denuclearize the North Korean peninsula, something that frankly neither party or presidents from both administrations, rather administrations from both parties has not succeeded at. And that's where he sees that he has an opening. Anderson?

COOPER: All right. Jim, thanks very much. Jim Sciutto with us tonight is BET host and Morehouse College African-American Studies professor Marc Lamont Hill, Senior Political Analyst David Gergen, Trump supporter, Kayleigh McEnany, conservative Trump critic, Tara Setmayer, and Joseph Borelli, Trump New York campaign co-chair.

David, let's talk about at first of all Hillary Clinton speech. What did you make of it and what impact do you think it's going to be, because she did raise a lot of specifics kind of all at once. I am wondering if you think it was too much too soon.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's an interesting question about too soon. I mean, I don't think it was too much. I thought it was the most comprehensive and best crafted speech that she's given. And, you know, I think the major thing it did, it heartened her supporters. It energizes her supporters because they have been true disappointed that she seems to be lackluster, she hasn't been good on the stomp. I love David Axelrod's point that she's very comfortable in that kind of setting she was. I thought that was right on target.

So, I do think that in many ways this helped her campaign. The interesting question is how she is now framing the fall. The fall as we heard earlier, this was a framing speech. It's almost all negative, it's almost about, "Elect me because I'm not Donald Trump," as opposed to a positive vision about the country. And the issue that she kept circling back to in the speech was, "Do you really want his finger on the button?" She's going to a very primal fear about nuclear war. And it does remind you of the long ago with the Goldwater campaign against Lyndon Johnson, when Goldwater was declared unfit in all sorts of ways by his opponents. And then the Johnson people ran this ad, the short daisy ad, I recall of a nuclear explosion and it devastated Goldwater. And I think that the Clinton people are hoping is they'll get through Trump's tough look by making this kind of sweeping, and scary kind of picture of who he is.

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Absolutely. You don't have to go back to Goldwater, you can go to '08, when he's -- when she says who do you want answering the phone at 2 or 3 a.m. That's a very common Hillary Clinton strategy. It may work differently this time, because unlike Barack Obama, Donald Trump has demonstrated to be somewhat unfit and to have poor temperament when it comes to these issues.

What she did there was important. She didn't go into the weeds. Sometimes when Hillary Clinton speaks she goes into the weeds on foreign policy issues. She didn't explain her strategy for defeating ISIS as much as she talked about how unreasonable his strike. And originally we learned tonight that the speech was to have more of her foreign policy and then that sort of it got tinkered with over the last four days to focus more on Trump. There's no need to do that right now, which is why I don't think it was too early. It's too early to go into the weeds. Wait for the debates, the head to head debates where she can demonstrate her policy knowledge. Right now what you do is you focus on the fact that Donald Trump doesn't have a coherent or consistent strategy and quite frankly he doesn't have the knowledge to be president on foreign policy matters.

GERGEN: I will guarantee you that that speech came out of the foreign policy group with -- around her and was mostly about her foreign policy and the political people got a hold of it said no. This campaign is about, "We got to this son of a gun off."

COOPER: And Kayleigh, I mean if one thing for Hillary Clinton today about Axelrod's point to make a formal speech in front of flags that's off with teleprompter, it's nothing to be on a stage with Donald Trump face to face in a debate and having him respond in real time.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, and I think she'll have a problem with that because what he is going to say is look, words are cheap, let's look at records here. Let's look at the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. Donald Trump is on record five days after the Iraq war by the -- with the Washington Post calling it a mess. That was a disaster, supporting that war as many would agree with.

[08:20:01] The Libya invasion, which now ISIS overruns Libya, she advocated that and the Obama administration. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's on the record saying this is not a good idea. Again, leaving a stay behind force in Iraq, she supported that (inaudible) under the tutelage of the Obama administration. The economist sites it as one of three reasons we now have the re-emergence of ISIS. Donald Trump is on the opposite side of it. So, I think he will gleefully look her in the eye, and point for point say you were wrong, I was right and who do you trust? I trust records, not words.

COOPER: And Tara can Donald Trump stand toe to toe against Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, I mean, even if it gets into the weeds and actual nuts and bolts on the policy? Because it's one thing in a debate where you have 16 candidates, you don't get much time to go into a lot of detail but when it's just two candidates on a stage, there is more time for detail.

TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. I mean, well, obviously Trump supporters are going to have to, you know, dismiss words because Donald Trump's words have gotten an incoherent rant as Hillary Clinton put it on foreign policy because he has no record. So, all we have are Donald Trump's words which changed in each paragraph there's something different. So, of course they're going to dismiss the importance of words, but no words do matter.

Yes, Hillary Clinton's record is a disaster. She has a failed foreign policy record all the way from Libya to Benghazi and that's something I think that the average person doesn't remember, that was a long time ago. And she can probably, you know, talk her way out of that in a debate because she's so much more knowledgeable than Donald Trump. Anyone who remembers the Republican debates and how Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, even Kasich for goodness sakes wiped the floor with Donald Trump on foreign policy issues because in he -- because he had no idea.

COOPER: I think been worked out to it. Not too much effect.

SETMAYER: Well, that's within a Republican primary where unfortunately it was all about personality. But when you talk about substance, there was no comparison as where there is. There's no anything.

JOSEPH BORELLI, CO-CHAIR, DONALD TRUMP NY CAMPAIGN: It was the point. Is the American public want to hear someone going out there saying we want to re-evaluate our role across the world? We want to reevaluate treaties that might be obsolete. And I think to use Hillary Clinton's own words, the historic mistake if were, you know, take a time machine a couple of months from now, the historic mistake might be for her and start focusing on foreign policy when she was in the driver's seat for so many years.

COOPER: So, do you think she's vulnerable on that?

BORELLI: Right. She's opening herself up on a position that she doesn't want to have to defend day in and day out. And where do you point to in the Secretary Of State Clinton playbook or rather memory book of success? Where do you look and see something that you can say her stamp is on here, she did it and it worked out better.

COOPER: We're going to continue this discussion in a sec we got to take a quick break. But we will come back right after the break, a lot more to talk about. Just ahead also Hillary Clinton clearly helping to leverage her experience as secretary of state, whether that cuts both ways, are critics using her foreign policy record as ammunition against her as Joe was talking about. How her diplomatic legacy could cut both ways, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:31:45] COOPER: Tonight, breaking news, Hillary Clinton's blistering critique of Donald Trump and Trump's counter attack in a foreign policy speech, in which Secretary Clinton called Trump unprepared and temperamentally unfit to be president. She touted her years of diplomatic experience. Listen.


HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, I've gone toe to toe with Russia and China and many other different leaders around the world, so I know we have to be able to stand our ground when we must and find common ground when we can.

That's how I could work with Russia to conclude the new start treaty to reduce nuclear stock piles and with China to increase pressure on North Korea. It's how our diplomats negotiated the landmark agreement on climate change which Trump now wants to rip up.


COOPER: Oh, it may not be surprising that Secretary Clinton is playing out her foreign policy resume. But at the same time, her record is gives her critics plenty of ammunition. Here CNN's Elise Labott.


ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Secretary of state Hillary Clinton was one of the loudest voices in favor of overthrowing Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, persuading President Obama to aid the Libyan rebels and impose a no fly zone with NATO to avert what she warned was a massacre.

CLINTON: The people in Libya were expressing themselves were demanding their freedom and Gaddafi responded brutally and said that he would just cut them down like cockroaches.

LABOTT: Gaddafi was eliminated but the intervention opened a power vacuum exploited by terrorist groups. Clinton is still plagued by the 2012 attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi which left four American diplomats dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and charges she aided in a coverup over terrorist involvement.

CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.


CLINTON: Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night decided to kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?

LABOTT: In Syria, Clinton was the first to call for removal of Syrian President Assad. CLINTON: The world will not waiver. Assad must go. And the Syrian people must be free to choose their own path forward.

LABOTT: In the summer of 2012, she fought a losing battle along with Defense Secretary Bob Gates and CIA Director David Petraeus to persuade the president to aid Syrian rebels as the death toll mounted. Four years later, half a million Syrians are dead, ISIS has taken a third of the country and a refugee crisis has spread beyond Middle East to Europe while Assad still clings to power.

CLINTON: Our commitment is to try to get Russia to cooperate with us.

LABOTT: Clinton tried to hit the reset button with Russian's foreign minister after the war with Georgia, which helped when it came to the Iran nuclear deal but the reset was seen as a failure when Moscow's aggression continued. Since then Vladimir Putin has invaded eastern Ukraine and next Crimea and propped up Assad in Syria.

After leaving office, Clinton wrote in her book "Hard Choices" she was distrustful of Putin, who she called him "thin skinned and autocratic". Clinton's hardest choice as senator maybe the 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War, she calls it a mistake now, but back then cast it with conviction.

CLINTON: Now, I believe the facts that brought us to this faithful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians killing over 20,000 people.


[20:35:19] LABOTT: Since leaving office, Clinton has tried to run on President Obama's foreign policy successes, like the Iran deal and opening to Cuba, but distanced herself from some of the blemishes like Syria where she's broken with the president by calling for a no fly zone.

Now ISIS rise to place after Clinton left the State Department, but Donald Trump argues ISIS was a direct result of policies she help formulate as secretary of state, Anderson.

COOPER: All right Elise, thanks very much.

More breaking news tonight. We are expecting Donald Trump to react tonight to Hillary Clinton's speech. Right now, though he is speaking out, again lashing out again against the judge in the Trump University lawsuit. He just gave an interview to the "Wall Street Journal" and what he said is sure to get attention. Joining us now with that our senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

Jim, we just got word about this. What did he say?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Anderson. Apparently on a "Wall Street Journal" interview Donald Trump said that the Judge handling that Trump University case in California, "Has a conflict of interest because of his Mexican heritage." That is according to the "Wall Street Journal", we can put a quote up on screen that Donald Trump gave to the "Wall Street Journal", and that quote he says, "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest."

And then during that course of the article, Anderson, Trump is quoted saying it is because of Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage that he has a completive interestingly in that case. Now we should point out Judge Curiel was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants. He himself is not a Mexican immigrant, he's just of Mexican heritage.

But when I asked Donald Trump about this earlier this week at that testy press conference in Trump Tower on Tuesday, I asked why does he keep bringing up the

Mexican heritage of this judge, and he said, he didn't really answer the question. He just said, well I'm a man of principle. And by the way, the people who take the courses with Trump University are used to -- are all saying that it was a great seminar.

So this is taking a one step further. This is Donald Trump not only saying oh, by the way this judge is of Mexican heritage which he has said on a number of occasions at campaign rallies, he is doubling down and then some by saying to the "Wall Street Journal" just coming out tonight Anderson that he believes the judge in this case has conflict of interest because of Mexican heritage.

I did try to reach out very quickly to the Trump campaign to get their reaction to this, to find out whether or not Donald Trump is standing by these remarks, whether he questions how they're being portrayed, in the newspaper they have not gotten back to me, Anderson.

COOPER: All right, Jim Acosta, we'll continue to request some sort of comment from Trump campaign, a lot to discuss the panel. Let's just put these words back on the screen just so we can read them again. He says, "I'm building a wall, it is inherent conflict of interest."

And do we have another screen grab? That's it. So, Kayleigh, I mean if in fact, I haven't read this whole article. But there's in fact he says that it's inherent conflict of interest for this judge to be on the case because of his Mexican heritage, is that right?

MCENANY: Well I haven't seen the article either, but it's not right that it's an inherent conflict of interest, it's because of the judge's Mexican heritage.

However, I do think there's inherent conflict of interest that that this judge received an award from La Raza, who is reportedly by the Daily Caller, involved with some of the Trump protests. I think the judge should recuse himself, because I don't think it's appropriate to sit before and try to honestly judge a case when in fact you're involved with a group that allegedly has taken parts in Donald Trump protests, so it is not the heritage it's the group that he is associated with.

COOPER: But Tara, if in fact -- this is correct that, he saying it's the heritage or partly heritage or what he decided was the judge's heritage, being inherent conflict, I mean, what does that say to all other people of Mexican heritage I mean who sit on juries or who, you know, are asked to weigh in on anything legal? Does that?

TARA SETAMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, this is insanity. This is something that is feeding into the xenophobic idea that the Republican Party now hates immigrants, they hate, you know, Latino's and good luck try to rally the Latino vote. I mean, Donald Trump everyday puts his foot in his mouth with things like this.

So these judge because he is Mexican, he has -- the case that he's presiding over has absolutely nothing to do with immigration or the wall, it has to do with a fraud case for Trump University. But because of something else, you're completely undermining the neutrality of a judicial judge. Are there judicial activist judges? Yes there are, but is it fair to say just because he's Mexican that he isn't fit to sit in a chair and decide over case that has nothing to do with immigration.


MCENANY: But the judge is also condemned (ph) some very questionable things. He unsealed documents and then afterwards he's trying to reseal documents because he forgot to remove some of the information. If you're a sitting judge, you don't forget to remove information before you unseal documents in the aid.

[20:39:59] SETMAYER: The information was redacting personal information, and that happens all the time, you should know that as judicial system, but it doesn't take away from what he unsealed. They're going to unseal them again.

So, I mean but this whole thing again it just points to you, Donald Trump being completely irrational, and lashing out and the temperament question. This is who you want to be in the -- in sitting in the Oval Office when it comes to, you know, to making the issues of global importance?

COOPER: Mitch McConnell was asked about this by Jake Tapper earlier today, let's just listen to what McConnell had to say.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) KENTUCKY: I do and I think that the attacks that he is routinely engaged in, for example, going after Susana Martinez, the Republican governor of New Mexico, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association I think it was a big mistake. Now what he ought to be doing now is try to unify the party, and not like attacking people once you have won, it is a time if you can to be gracious, and try to bring the party together.


COOPER: David Gergen, what do you make -- not only Mitch McConnell saying that but now what Trump had said.

GERGEN: Well I think in fairness we need to see the context ... COOPER: Right.

GERGEN: ... to which he was speaking, but the quote itself is it defensible, his in violation of every tradition of American judicial system. You know, you're just taking a long board this year and if you had a question like that, let's should a white judge because he is white, should he recuse himself from a case on affirmative action?

Should a black judge recuse himself or herself if it's a case about the criminal justice system.

MCENANY: I'm known to that.

GERGEN: Yeah, that's right. And but it goes so far beyond anything that we sort of believe in as Americans. It's not just a question of, you know, what happened in this particular case, and whether it redacted or didn't redacted I had his documents, it's a question of what he believes about reality.


GERGEN: And how he sees people in the country. This is extraordinarily divisive kind of statement that sort of groups people by, you know, what is your heritage, therefore you must be this, this, this, you must be prejudice on this and this. This is America. This is where people, you know, share creeds and come together, and have conversations that are real.

HILL: Yeah, I agree, I mean it's indefensible, it's shameful. I mean he said it is inherently a conflict of interest by virtue of his Mexican heritage because of his politics in terms of wanting to build a wall there's no excuse of that. And I can't imagine anyone can defend that, it's interesting no Mexican can judge me. It save arguable for (inaudible), I mean it doesn't make sense. And this is the standard bearer, and I agree Tara, it does makes Republicans look bad. But this is the standard bearer of the party disappoint, it's the leader of the Republican Party.


SETMAYER: Not by my choice. When I hear what Paul Ryan makes, you know, says that he's going to endorse him, we don't agree on some things, we agree on others, he has to -- he takes ownership of these kinds of things. This is the kind of identity politics ...

COOPER: I know your Trump supporter?

SETMAYER: ... that Republicans has fought against.

GERGEN: I agree with that.

BORELLI: This doesn't help the notion I think most people would agree with that Donald Trump needs to do a better job with in terms of attracting Hispanics. I mean that does help that. We have to be clear about it.


BORELLI: The judge hasn't done anything to make it seem as though he is not biased, especially with this with this instance where he released these documents, then try to walk it back, and bring the documents back. If this person is out there actively engaging in politics that are against Donald Trump, which is what it seems to be I mean ...

COOPER: But how is he engaging in politics against Donald Trump.

BORELLI: His involved in some organizations does what ...

COOPER: But no, but that's in the -- from what I understand in the past. And was honored by the organization or if he was a member, that was in the past. He's not like leading demonstrations against Donald Trump.

BORELLI: I'm serious now they were with the, you know, signs and everything, but it's tough to separate people's, you know, internal feelings from perhaps their professional life. That's it. This is probably one of the most unique situations we've ever encountered in terms of ...

COOPER: Don't judges always separate their feelings, I mean that's what judges always supposed to do, separate their feelings ...


BORELLI: You will have lawyers try to venue shop, and get different judges, so there is discretion amongst ...


COOPER: But the idea that because he is Mexican he can't do that or Mexican heritage, Trump earlier said he's Mexican, but obviously not, he's American of Mexican heritage. But the idea that somebody of Mexican heritage cannot inherently do that would be offensive.

BORELLI: Listen, if the judge is engaged in politics that are against Donald Trump's politics and he set a high profile person running for president, then maybe yeah -- maybe there is a reason to ...


HILL: The question was ...

BORELLI: Just about being Mexican, then I would agree with you.

COOPER: All right, let's take a break. We're going to continue the conversation after we take a short break.

Also ahead, what police first thought was a murder suicide at a UCLA campus turned out to be even more. The shooter had a kill list, the crime scene now stretches to Minnesota.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:48:23] COOPER: Welcome back. We're awaiting a Trump rally tonight in San Jose, California. Already protesters are gathering, a standoff appears to be shaping up between them and some Trump supporters. CNN's Sara Murray is at the event, she joins us now.

What's the scene outside there, Sara?

SARA MURRAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, you can see that protesters have started to gather outside the event. There are fewer than 100, but they are very vocal. And there is nothing that separating protesters who are here from the Donald Trump supporters who are just on the other side of our cameraman right here.

Now there have been a couple of scuffles so far, mainly people in each other's faces. So far no violent interaction, and police have not intervened at this point although they have mobilized just out of shot, behind where the protesters have gathered, they're behind the bike racks, they're ready in case this escalates, although at this point like I said we have not seen any violate interaction.

COOPER: All right, that's certainly good news, Sara Murray, thanks for that.

Back with our panel, I just want to read out, this is from the "Wall Street Journal" article that had just came out shortly minutes ago before we went on air. This again -- there's a quote from the "Wall Street Journal", quote in an interview to "Wall Street Journal." Mr. Trump said U.S. district Judge Gonzalo Curiel who's presiding over the Trump so-called University case had a, quote, "absolute conflict", in presiding over the litigation given that he was, "Of Mexican heritage and a member of Latino Lawyers Association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants was relevant, because of his campaign stands against illegal immigration and it's pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I'm building a wall, it's an inherent conflict of interest."

SETMAYER: No way. I mean so what. So this judge was part of the National La Rava Association -- Lawyers Association which is a Latino Lawyers Association.

[20:50:05] So that means that any black judge that's part of the National Bar Association is -- have a conflict of interest that they preside over cases that involved white people, I mean this is insane, and it continues to feed a narrative of the xenophobia.

Like I said before, the Republican Party has fought really hard against identity politics, with the both organization of different groups of people because we believe in individuals. And to continue for -- to continue with this line of campaigning by Donald Trump and accepting that in the Republican Party is going to doom Republicans with Hispanics the same way that Republicans were dealing with black after Barry Goldwater. This is so destructive.

COOPER: Joseph?

BORELLI: Well, first of all, La Raza has an agenda, that they ... MCENANY: Absolutely. I agree with you.

BORELLI: That's fine, and they're allowed to.


BORELLI: But here's the question. Here's the question. I guess, to everyone on the panel can weigh in on. If this judge was a potential juror and he answered a questionnaire saying that he has specific political beliefs that are 100 percent against what the person on trial is against or for rather, would this person be disqualified from the jury. And I think he would be disqualified for the jury. If it is OK ...


BORELLI: ... to say he might be disqualified for a jury, why are we so, you know ...

HILL: Here's why. Here's why. Because he didn't say that it's a possibility that this person's politics undermine their ability to be objective. What he said is, by virtue of being Mexican, it is inherent conflict of interest. No juror would inherently be disqualified from a jury pulled by virtue of their Mexican heritage. It will be by virtue of their politics, (inaudible) we have a different conversation about of it.

It's different than saying it is inherent. He is saying that no Mexican can preside over me.

MCENANY: Well, Marc, I think you have a point. That something -- he would have bifurcated that statement, gotten rid of the heritage aspect of it. It would be a completely viable statement.

SETMAYER: But he didn't ...


MCENANY: Inherently that -- inherently that is not a crucial fact that La Raza was involved with a protest that shut down Donald Trump Chicago rally.


SETMAYER: ... which is a different organization. You're conflating two separate organizations.


SETMAYER: La Raza, the National Council La Raza is an activist radical, illegal immigration organization. The National La Raza Lawyers Association is a lawyer ...

HILL: Different organization.

SETMAYER: ... completely different. That's like saying that the Black Panthers and the National Black Bar Association are the same thing. That's the problem. Know the difference, if they were the same organization ...

COOPER: You're saying these are two different groups, they just happen to use the word La Raza.

SETMAYER: Because La Raza means race in Spanish.


SETMAYER: I mean, it's a Latin word though they're completely different organization it's not their comparison.


GERGEN: If being a member of NAACP was a disqualification, Thurgood Marshall could not serve on Brown versus Board of Education.


GERGEN: Let's be real here. We do not disqualify people because of their race or ethnicity for things to the sort.

SETMAYER: Apparently, Donald Trump thinks that's what we do.

GERGEN: Well, the fact that he does, I must say, I agree if you separate that. He was just talking about the organization. That's something you could have an argument about. You can't have an argument about disqualifying somebody because of his race or ethnicity as a judge.

That is not American. It is not what we stand for. And I think Donald Trump is going to regret having said that.

COOPER: It's interesting, too because, I mean, Donald Trump had, you know, already raised eyebrows about days ago when he said the judge is Mexican. You would think in any campaign or traditional campaign, there would people around the candidate who would say, "You know what? You said this thing, you called him Mexican. He is not Mexican. He's American." Just as many anchors on air have said to Trump surrogates, you know, he is Mexican-American. And maybe talk to the candidate and the candidate might have sort of thought about it and tailored their remarks.

Donald Trump clearly does not do that or does not have people around him who are sort of highlighting some of these things.

MCENANY: He says what he thinks and sometimes he goes too far. And I wish he would revise that statement. I think it would make a lot more sense if he revised it.

But look, he says what he thinks. It's one of his greatest attributes. It's also his Achilles' heel. Sometimes he goes too far, sometimes, you know, he says things that we wish he didn't. But many Republican and Conservatives see it as the cost of change. It's, finally, someone who recognizes the fight of the middle-class Democrats.

COOPER: I guess, though, as a candidate is one thing but as president of the United States, do you want somebody, and I'm just throwing this up in the Oval Office who just says what they think, goes with their gut in the moment and doesn't really perhaps think too much about what they're saying.


MCENANY: You know, with now, Donald Trump has negotiated deals with people of all ethnicity, all races. We just saw on the previous program someone of ...

COOPER: Race, those are made deals in the Middle East.

MCENANY: Absolutely. Absolutely.


COOPER: ... in America.

MCENANY: He is someone who's a diplomat in his business matter. He made $10 billion organization. He will be just fine as president of the United States. And I'd much rather have him in the dishonesty of Hillary Clinton, any day but you never done ...

COOPER: We're going to take a break. We're going to have more in this just ahead. Also, six weeks after Prince died, the cause of death is in a toxicology report. So is he died of accidental overdose of opioids?

[20:54:58] It was not the drug that people actually expected to find, a surprising details of that ahead.


COOPER: Well, the medical examiner's report is in. Prince's death was from an accidental overdose of opioid medication, in particular, fentanyl which is stronger than morphine, stronger than heroin in fact.

That news came in today six weeks after the musical legend was found dead at the age of 57 in an elevator at his Paisley Park home recording studio. Sara Sidner joins us now with the latest.

What more have you learned from the M.E.'s report?

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The medical examiner here can only release a couple of things that's caused and manner of death. That manner of death was an accident and it said that Prince self- administered fentanyl and that he died of fentanyl toxicity, but what else is in the report? Talks about his scars and amputation, and whether he had either of those.

And there were certainly listed scar in left hip, and there's been a lot of talk, Anderson, about whether Prince was suffering from extreme pain in his hip from all his concerts. And you've seen, you know, how incredibly he would jump off boxes and jump off all sorts of things and do splits and that he was having trouble because he also wore heels.

And so, there's a lot of people talking about whether or not he was taking pain medication to deal with that kind of pain. But fentanyl, as you mentioned, is an extremely potent drug. It's 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine, 25 to 50 times stronger than heroin, and it is extremely, extremely hard to get your hands on. And so, the investigation is going to be looking at how exactly he did that and if he had illegal prescription for it.

[21:00:01] COOPER: And I guess, it usually administered in a patch or even like a lollipop I think. Did Prince have a prescription for it?

SIDNER: That is a very good question. We know that he had a prescription for something we do not know what because we know ....