Return to Transcripts main page
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Chicago Torture Video: 4 Charged with Hate Crimes, Kidnapping; Obama Calls Facebook Torture Video "Despicable"; Officials: U.S. Identifies Go-Betweens Who Gave Emails to WikiLeaks; Officials: Senior Russian Officials Celebrated Trump Win; Officials: Intercepted Russian Messages Helped Shape U.S. Intel Assessment; Trump Team Urges GOP to Use Federal Money to Pay for Border Wall; Speaker Ryan: GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood; Sen. Cornyn: GOP Won't Offer Replacement Plan for Obamacare; Trump's Plan to Replace Obamacare Short on Details; When Crimes are Streamed Online
Aired January 5, 2017 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: -- all while broadcasting it on Facebook live. Now, we want to warn you the video you're about to watch is disturbing to say the least and it's hard to watch.
The victim is 18 years old, a young male with special needs. President Obama calls the video despicable while talking to a Chicago CNN affiliate about that specially and racial tensions in general.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Here's how I think about it. I don't think it's accurate to say race relations have gotten worse. Listen, I came to Chicago in '85. You were there during Council Wars. I promise you, race relations haven't gotten worse.
But what is true is that, in part, because we see visuals of racial tensions, violence, and so forth, because of smartphones and the Internet and media, what we've seen is surfacing, I think a lot of the problems that have been there a long time. Whether it's tensions between police and communities, whether it's hate crimes of the despicable sort that has just now recently surfaced on Facebook. I take these things very seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: President Obama, that was him late today. Ana Cabrera joins us now from Chicago with more.
So, charges filed against the four people for their roles in this sickening crime. What more do we know about it?
ANA CABRERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They are facing a number of different charges, Anderson, including aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, even hate crime charges among others. Now, the hate crime charge stems from the racial epithets that we can hear in the video. And because police say the victim has a mental disability and they believe that played a role in this assault.
We've learned that three of the suspects are just 18 years old. One is 24, two are African-American men, two African-American women. The victim is white.
And we're learning more about exactly what unfolded. Police say the victim was hanging out for a couple of days before this attack with one of the suspects who is also a friend from school, Jordan Hill. And then on Tuesday, they went to this residence where the attack occurred and met up with the larger group.
Now, you see in the video, he is tied up. They hit him. They kick him. Police say at one point they even made him drink out of the toilet. And you also see in the video, they're using a knife to cut his hair all the way down to his scalp, to the point where they make his scalp bleed.
And, Anderson, police stay the video is obviously a key piece of the evidence in this case. But they also say that the suspects confessed to the assault as well. Anderson?
COOPER: And how did this end? I mean, how -- and how did police find the victim? Because I understand they found him on the street.
CABRERA: Right. The victim apparently escaped. They found him wandering on the street about a block away from where they say the assault occurred. This was on Tuesday. They say he was bloody, he was battered, he was wearing a tank top and shorts. And keep in mind it is freezing here. They say he was incredibly distraught. So traumatized he could hardly speak.
But they did learn that apparently he managed to escape when a neighbor near the residence where this happened complained of noise. Went and apparently interrupted the assault and called police, Anderson.
COOPER: And the motive, what had police said about it? Because, I mean, as you mentioned, hate crimes, there's a racial component and also perhaps because he has special needs.
CABRERA: They don't believe this attack was premeditated. In fact, police say based on their interviews with the victim as well as the suspects that Jordan Hill, one of the suspects and the victim, initially got into a playful fight, is the words they used, that then escalated out of control.
They tell us that it was the women who allegedly tied up the victim and then you see what happened after that on the video with the following assault. But we are told the victim was likely held for four to five hours before he escaped, Anderson.
COOPER: And the video itself, I mean, I've watched a couple of minutes of it. It goes on for quite a long time, doesn't it? CABRERA: We know it was at least streaming for about 30 minutes. Our understanding is there could be even other videos, other people who are also recording and streaming, up to three videos. But the main video, which we are showing you some of those clips that are so hard to watch, that was 30 minutes long.
And when you watch the video, the woman who is recording it, one of the suspects in custody, an 18-year-old, she is commenting. She is laughing. She is talking about some of the comments she's giving in her Facebook live streaming. Some people even saying somebody's going to jail. It's all really disturbing.
And again, you hear a lot of expletives, but a lot of racial undertones in there. And even at one point they mention President- elect Donald Trump.
Now, police say they don't believe this attack was politically motivated at all. In fact they say some of the things that you hear in the video may have just been these suspects trying to make a headline. Anderson?
[21:05:10] COOPER: Yeah, nothing here is racial undertones, it seems like premature racial overtones and a lot of it. Ana Cabrera, thanks very much.
With us now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Danny Cevallos, also Symone Sanders, former press secretary to Senator Bernie Sanders, and Joey Jackson, also a CNN legal analyst and defense attorney.
Joey, let's start with you. I mean, obviously, just a horrific videotape, sickening to see. How likely is it you think these hate crime charges will be successful?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's very likely. I mean, you know, there's a couple of ways to talk about this, from a human perspective, where is the humanity? What has society become and what are we doing to serve as legitimate examples for our young people that they believe that this is not only acceptable behavior but behavior that should be funny and that everybody should look at.
COOPER: And streamed it live.
JACKSON: And so, I do think when you look at the statute itself that talks about hate, it's predicated upon two things. Number one, prosecutors would have to establish that this was motivated by some racial components, maybe because this victim was white. But number two also because of the mental impairment and disability.
And when you have them behaving in that fashion, it doesn't, I mean, take a rocket scientist. Think about who's going to be evaluating this. You have jurors, right? People could use their common sense and good judgment, and they'll have to that is jurors make a decision as to whether this was something motivated by race, motivated by any mental impairment. So, I don't think it's that much of a stretch at all for those hate crime charges to stick.
COOPER: Symone, I know when you first saw this yesterday on camera, I think you said that it was certainly sickening. You weren't sure if it constituted hate crime. Do you still think that now that prosecutors are -- the police are actually charging this?
SYMONE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think we need to -- I think the prosecutors have done the right thing. They found all the reasonable cause they needed to find.
I think it's dangerous for folks that aren't legal experts like myself, in fact, to have this really in-depth conversation about the legality of something. Because I think it waters it down and kind of takes away from the disgusting, the sickening acts that happened and I think that's some of what transpired on the air last night. People were angry on social media saying, "Well, how could you not say this is wrong?" So I -- perhaps we should -- I should be looking at it more so from the --
COOPER: What's (inaudible) to use the term hate crime. I mean, if this was four, you know, skin heads doing this to an African-American teenage who had a disability, wouldn't it be fair to call it a hate crime?
SANDERS: I think yesterday when -- today it is absolutely a hate crime. But yesterday on air when it all broke, we didn't have all the details. You know, we were speculating.
COOPER: But you see it now as a hate crime?
SANDERS: I definitely do. I have seen all the details. But regardless, if I think it's a hate crime or not, I think we're having the wrong conversation, if you will. I think the conversation needs to be about what was that young man feeling that was being assaulted? How did we get here as a community where these kids think it's OK to go out and do this? Why are we so polarized?
And I think that's a separate conversation from is this wrong? Absolutely it's wrong. And I think a lot of times in the heat of the moment, things are happening, we've got our initial reactions. But I really think taking a step back, you know, it's more so about yes, this is wrong, this is disgusting. These young people should be prosecuted. Justice should be served. But we need to have some additional conversations, I think, about our society.
COOPER: Dan, I mean, it is extraordinary that these four who are doing this had no qualms about streaming this live for, you know, 30 plus minutes.
DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We live in an amazing era for law enforcement. And I've seen this in court first hand. Social media, criminals wallow in posts what they did on social media in cases that would otherwise -- COOPER: Or even what they're going to do.
CEVALLOS: What they're going to do in cases that would otherwise be no case for the prosecution. A defendant single handily makes the case against himself by posting images or video of him essentially committing the crime. So we're in a new era. You know, there's dash cam video, body cam video and social media, which is capturing all this stuff and that is called evidence in court.
COOPER: But, I mean, do they not even realize that -- and I'm not just talking about these four, people who are broadcasting this stuff. Do they not realize this is going to be used against them?
CEVALLOS: Anderson, this is a different generation. So, but -- from what I can see, the allure of potential viral fame of instant celebrity that if you can call it celebrity on social media, that allure is too much for people and they end up posting these things that are just damaging to them for a lifetime.
SANDERS: Anderson, I'm going to say, I don't think they probably even thought about the ramifications of what they were doing. I mean, clearly there was something wrong for them to even engage in the act of torture and assault that happened. So, I mean, young people all across the country that are --
COOPER: They're not thinking.
SANDERS: Yeah, they're not thinking. They're posting on Twitter on, they're posting on Facebook on, they're posting on Instagram. And we always talk about words matter but our actions online matter.
[21:10:02] And they can get us, "caught up," and in this instance charge us with crimes and prosecuted.
COOPER: Joey, one of them was allegedly a friend of this young man. He's just --
JACKSON: You've heard the expression, if that's a friend, who needs an enemy? I mean, you treat your friends like this, even that. I mean, to your point, Symone, you know, from a perspective of society as a whole, where have we gone that young people feel that this is appropriate, that it's proper, that we should look at this, and it's funny by the way.
You know, we should weigh this in and have everybody take a part of this. They can have a long time to think about this because the aggravated kidnapping charges, in and off themselves, it's 6 to 30 years. And, you know, will they get that? I don't know. I'm sure the defense attorneys will argue age is mitigation. Not that that excuses it but, you know, certainly when you're younger, defense attorney will be arguing, the focus is on rehabilitation. And so that's what we'll see.
But it's just very disturbing to have this happen. And I also think that there will be a legislative response in as much as filming and streaming these things. I think states are going to look at the legislative value in making that, in and off itself, criminal. It's just the start.
CERVALLOS: They should encourage it because it's fantastic for law enforcement. Detectives will tell you, Facebook is often the first place they go to look for evidence. And they will find it. Because, you know, some criminals just aren't that discriminating when it comes to posting wise things online.
You know, this case, we're talking a lot about hate crimes. Number one, the hate crime charged in this case isn't even the most serious crime, it's the aggravated kidnapping. And Illinois and federal law covers not only hate crimes against -- based on race but also mental and physical disability. And that's also a possibility here in this case.
CERVALLOS: But under both state law and federal law.
COOPER: All right, appreciate the discussion. Thank you all. We're going to have a lot more.
Just ahead, more breaking news on the election hacking story and what's in the classified report that President Obama got and Donald Trump is going to get tomorrow, and Donald Trump's take on it all. We'll be right back.
COOPER: A lot more happening tonight. We've got breaking news on the intelligence community's assessment the Russia hacked Democratic computers and meddled in the presidential election. They brief President Obama today, they went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and tomorrow the heads of the CIA, FBI and the Director of National Intelligence will brief President-elect Trump.
Tonight's breaking news has to do with how the intelligence community believes the stolen data got to WikiLeaks and it's not the only late development tonight. Our justice correspondent Pamela Brown is back with more on what she's been learning.
So, there's confidential intelligence report. What do we know so far?
[21:15:00] PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we've learned, Anderson, that the classified comprehensive report includes the identifications of the go-between people that the Russian government relied on to provide those stolen e-mails to WikiLeaks, according to officials we've spoken with. Sources tell us that these are third-party people known as cutouts that the Russian government used essentially to give Russia plausible deniability in the election hacks.
And in addition, Anderson, we've learned the report includes intercepted communications of Russian government officials expressing happiness at Trump's win. Just one factor bolstering this view within the intelligence community that Russia was behind the hacks. COOPER: And these intercepted messages that we talked about earlier
talking from Russia, according to U.S. officials, some of them were allegedly congratulatory over Trump's win.
BROWN: That's what we're told from our sources that essentially, these intercepted conversations have these officials being congratulatory with one another, celebratory. But we're told that there was no single intercepted communication that qualifies as a smoking gun on Russia's intention to benefit Trump's candidacy or to claim credit for doing so. But sources say it's just one small piece of the puzzle that officials have relied on to create this fuller picture of Russia's involvement and motive.
COOPER: And Donald Trump is still set to receive that briefing tomorrow.
BROWN: Yeah, yeah, that's right. We expect that briefing to happen tomorrow in New York at Trump Tower. It will be led by DNI Chief James Clapper also in attendance, NSA head Admiral Mike Rogers, CIA head John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and of course, as we know, this will be the first time they meet in the same room since Trump has publicly cast doubt on the intelligence community's assessment as recently as tonight. As you saw, Anderson, he did that.
This seemed to not sit well with retired General Martin Dempsey who is the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and what appears to be a significant slam at Trump. He tweeted tonight, "Intelligence is hard, thankless work. Fortunately, we have dedicated, patriotic, and courageous men and women on the job. Thanks."
So for a context on this, my colleague and Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr says up until now, Dempsey has been adamant about staying apolitical. But clearly tonight, he's sort of breaking from that and this comes on the heels of James Clapper's implicit message aimed at Trump during today's hearing when he said there was a difference between skepticism and disparagement. But we should notice we wrapped up today, Anderson, that Trump tweeted he is a big fan of the intelligence community and his team has said that he's only questioning the conclusions reached, not the actual intelligence, Anderson.
COOPER: All right, Pam Brown. Pam, thanks for that.
Joining us now is CNN Counterterrorism Analyst Philip Mudd, also former House Intelligence Community Chairman Mike Rogers, and Rod Beckstrom, former director of the National Cybersecurity Center.
Phil, let's start with you. The latest news tonight, the U.S. intelligence says they identified the go-betweens the Russians allegedly used to provide stolen e-mails to WikiLeaks. I mean, that would be how it goes. It's not like Russian officers -- intelligence officers are going to be in direct contact with WikiLeaks, correct?
PHILIP MUDD, FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL, FBI AND CIA: That's right. But let's be careful, Anderson. There's a couple questions we have to ask. What happened? Who acquired the information, in this case, intermediaries who may have passed it to WikiLeaks? I think the real question that will happen in the conversation I presume at Trump Tower tomorrow is, who was responsible for authorizing that? How close can we get to Vladimir Putin? And that's where I think Donald Trump has a legitimate question. Do you know what happened? Were the Russians or Russian entities responsible for receiving information or acquiring information about the American elections? And did Vladimir Putin know?
I think the second half of that question is up in the air. And I think the president-elect has the right to ask how confident are you that Putin actually knew? I don't think the intelligence guys know that answer.
COOPER: Chairman Rogers, to that specific point, I mean, Clapper today were -- did talk about that. The public briefing on Capitol Hill saying that something at this level, he doesn't believe -- that it goes to the highest reaches, and then the question about who the highest, you know, power in Russia was. He said it would be Vladimir Putin and he doesn't believe a lot goes on without his knowing something that would influence politics in another country.
MIKE ROGERS, (R) FORMER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CMTE. CHAIRMAN: Oh, absolutely. These are covert influence operations. The soviets did them for a long time and candidly, they were very successful at them. They used other techniques.
Now, they have another tool in their toolkit which is cyber and all of that goes to the higher echelons of now the Russian government. So there's no doubt in my mind that Vladimir Putin knows. And remember, they've been actively seeking access into the State Department. They've had success in the Department of Defense. They've had success to members of Congress. They've had success, I can tell you, that a nation state got into my private unclassified e-mail when I was chairman. It was notified by a third nation state that the Russians had likely penetrated the non-classified version of all of that. This happens. And so, there shouldn't be a shock to us.
[21:20:00] What should be a shock is to the level that they went. And there was no doubt that they took this information, put it on the deep and dark web. And it looks -- appears to me that somebody went in and they notified somebody where to go find it and get it to WikiLeaks. This would not be unusual for any Russian intelligence operation. That part really shouldn't be in doubt for us, how it influenced the election, all of the politics. Even from Obama, by the way, for trying to make this all political, I think, is terrible for the collection efforts of the United States Intelligence Community.
COOPER: Rod, you ran the National Cybersecurity Center. All these separate pieces, to you, do they add up? I mean, do the picture that's starting to come together make sense?
ROD BECKSTROM, FORMER DIRECTOR NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTER: Look, clearly, the Russians are -- have world-class tradecraft in hacking, in cybersecurity so they clearly could have gotten to the DNC systems, or DCCC systems and many others. Clearly, WikiLeaks published a lot of e-mails that no one has denied the accuracy of. And the question is, how they got from point A to point B. They didn't necessarily come from those Russian sources. That's still not proven. That's what's being discussed now and explored.
But as Chairman Rogers mentioned, even if you go in a dark web and draft content there, what to make those connections and to be sure you know who the parties are and who's directing them, that's not easy business.
So, I think there's still going to be a lot of questions about attribution here for some time to come. But, yes, there's a plausible theory here. Yes, clearly, you know, Russians had an interest in this election. There's a big personal vendetta between Putin and Hillary Clinton.
Clearly, when she raises same concerns about his election or namely saying it was a rigged election in 2011 and the Russians said that State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies were interfering in their election. So, you know, all these issues are going to come out in this discussion and debate. But this is a -- it's an important review and discussion is going on, but we're not going to get to simple certainty, Anderson.
COOPER: And Phil, you raise questions always and sort of caution about, you know, understanding the tradecraft is one thing but understanding motive is something different entirely.
MUDD: That's right. We have to distinguish here between what we think and what we know. We know that somebody stole information and those individuals were connected to the Russian security services. When you hear American intelligence professionals today in front of Senate committees saying, "We believe that this could not have happened without Vladimir Putin's consent", that's a judgment. That's not a fact.
We are stepping into a zone where we're determining whether to impose sanctions on the Russians based on a judgment. I do not agree with the president-elect, with his tone in terms of addressing the intelligence community. Completely inappropriate.
It is, however, appropriate to question whether the intelligence professionals know that Vladimir Putin was complicit or whether they think. And my answer is they think he was complicit. They don't know, Anderson.
COOPER: And Chairman Rogers, certainly, I mean, what -- the concern -- it seems like the major concern for Donald Trump has been that this somehow would be used to delegitimize him in some people's minds and certainly maybe some Democrats trying to do that.
The -- but there's no evidence that -- or it's not -- you can't say 100 percent what impact the release of the DNC e-mails had. It's not -- and we're not talking about hacking of, you know, voting terminals, voting booths on election day.
ROGERS: Well, if you're a Democrat on the losing end of this, you think the Russians stole the election clearly. That's not what happened here. I think what happened here -- and again, this whole notion that they hacked the election, I think, creates absolutely the wrong narrative on what happened, and candidly, is a little bit dangerous.
And I think the president fed into this and believe me, the president- elect should not have disparaged the community of which he will rely on in many very dangerous circumstances around the world.
But I think this whole notion that it rose up to this political level is bad enough. They did not hack the election. They didn't change a vote from a yes to a no. They didn't change a vote from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. None of that happened. And none of that is documented.
BECKSTROM: It could have but they didn't. It could have but they didn't.
ROGERS: Well, I'm going to dispute that a little bit. They have done it -- they could have done it in a very few places because of the dispersion of our election system and the way it's run, it would be nearly impossible to do it today. If we all went to completely electronic voting systems, that may be another conversation. They couldn't really quite do it today.
But that's never what the Russians have intended. As a matter of fact, they've been -- again, they've been doing this for a long time. What they want to do is cast doubt into the electoral system. So some notion that if they used only that these e-mails, that there was congratulatory e-mails, if that is their basis of fact, then I'm a little bit worried about the analysts.
[21:25:02] But what I think you probably will find is inside of that sources and methods, very deep and sensitive information, classified briefing, you're going to get a very different picture of what they know and what they don't know and what they think they know. My guess is that they have a higher degree of confidence based on better forensic information on that cyber stuff versus these little -- I just -- I would be shocked if they based their decision on these things. And if they did, by the way, if somebody should, given the wire brush treatment, I'm just going to guess that what happens in that classified session might be a little bit different.
ROGERS: And I hope that the president-elect gets that full picture because he's going to need that. He needs to understand what the Russians are doing not just here but all over the world.
COOPER: Right, we got to leave it there. Mike Rogers, thank you. Rod Beckstrom, Phil Mudd as well, always.
Coming up next, more on President-elect Trump's take as well as the scolding he got today from Vice President Biden.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: The breaking news tonight on the election cyber meddling, President-elect Trump gets briefed on it tomorrow. Today, he got scolded by Vice President Biden on his tweeting about this and other things.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS HOST, NEWS HOUR: The tweet, just today, he tweeted -- he called the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the head clown. Last week, he said just, like -- "Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblock, thought it was going to be a smooth transition, NOT", in all caps. And --
JOE BIDEN, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Grow up, Donald. Grow up. Time to be an adult. You're president. You got to do something. Show us what you have. You're going to propose legislation. We're going to get to debate it. Let the public decide. Let them vote in Congress. Let's see what happens.
It's going to be much clearer what he's for and against and what we're for and against, now that it's going to get down to actually discussing in detail these issues that affect people's lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: I don't think he's going to take that advice. As we mentioned earlier, Donald Trump tweeted a series of complaints about the handling, the hacking story late tonight. And, he weighted earlier today as well. More on that from our Jim Acosta.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Donald Trump is doing some hacking backtracking. One day after the president-elect cited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's denial that he colluded with Russia to interfere in the U.S. election, a tweet retreat. "The dishonest media likes saying that I'm in agreement with Julian Assange, wrong," Trump tweeted. "I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth. The media likes to make it look like I'm against intelligence when in fact I'm a big fan."
[21:30:03] Trump is referring to this tweet yesterday when he seemed to be advocating Assange's latest comments tweeting, "Julian Assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta, why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info."
And his support for WikiLeaks is nothing new, especially when it was dumping damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF UNITED STATES: This just came out, WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.
ACOSTA: Contrast, Trump shifting on Assange with top Republicans from Arizona Senator John McCain.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: This is really a person who has put the lives of Americans in danger. He cannot be trusted for anything.
ACOSTA: To his old campaign rival, Ted Cruz.
SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: I think Assange has done enormous damage to our national security. I would not be praising him under any circumstances.
ACOSTA: Trump is also battling against a growing bipartisan consensus around the U.S. Intelligence Community's view that Kremlin-backed hackers were meddling in the election. Their GOP leaders support Trump's complaint that Democrats are exploiting the cyber scandal to damage the president-elect.
REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: Russia had clearly tried to meddle in our political system. No two ways about them. First of all, and I think this is what the president-elect is legitimately upset about, there are attempts on elect to try and delegitimize this election. That's just bogus. He won fair and square. He won clearly and convincingly.
ACOSTA: Democrats argue it's more about Trump's grasp of reality.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D) CALIFORNIA: This is not healthy skepticism as they would like to portray it. This is very unhealthy essentially avoidance of the facts because they don't suit the president-elect's interests.
ACOSTA: Trump's critics say he harmed his own credibility this week, by claiming he would reveal by now new information about election hacking, then failing to deliver.
TRUMP: I also know things that other people don't know. And so they cannot be sure of this situation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you know that other people don't know?
TRUMP: You'll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.
ACOSTA: Transition officials insist the president-elect supports the intelligence community and they are pushing back on reports that Trump wants to pare back the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the new administration.
SEAN SPICER, INCOMING W.H. PRESS SECRETARY: There is no truth to this idea of restructuring the intelligence community infrastructure. It is 100 percent false.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: And Jim Acosta joins us now. So, President-elect Trump tweeting out some new comments tonight, what did he have to say?
ACOSTA: That's right, Anderson. He's spreading more doubts about the intelligence community's findings. He put out these tweets, we'll put them up on the screen for you saying, "The Democratic National Committee would not allow the FBI to study or see its computer info after it was supposedly hacked by Russia. So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers?"
That is right to some extent, but it doesn't account for the fact that we're learning at CNN that the intelligence community is also identifying some of these go-betweens between these Russian hackers and WikiLeaks.
So, the president-elect appears to be behind the news cycle a little bit in that regard, but it does set up this interesting confrontation that we are going to see or not see actually. It's going to happen behind closed doors between the president-elect and the intelligence community when he sits down with those intelligence community leaders to go after their findings on Russian hacking in the November election.
It is interesting to note that in that room will be the outgoing Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and the incoming National Security Adviser for the president-elect, Mike Flynn. Flynn was fired by Clapper back in 2014. So some interesting dynamics play there, Anderson.
COOPER: Jim, there's this report that we just got in a short time ago about President-elect Donald Trump's transition team apparently signaling to congressional Republican leaders that the president- elect's preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April.
COOPER: That would seemingly be a break from the idea of having Mexico pay for it as he said over and over again on the campaign trail. What do you make of this, because you went to something like, I think, 100,000 Trump rallies over the past 18 months --
COOPER: -- or so.
COOPER: A little exaggeration there, but.
ACOSTA: I think it was 99,000, Anderson.
ACOSTA: But yes, no, and every one of those rallies, the big applause line was we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.
Apparently, the fine print is a bit more complicated than that. Our Hill team is finding out that yes, the president-elect's transition team is telling congressional leaders that what he wants to see is an appropriations process that will pay for the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Now, we should point out, yes, that is a massive departure from what
he said out on the campaign trail. We should point out though back in October, he began to talk about this shift in this position. He talked about having Mexico reimburse the United States government for that wall, not exactly the same thing as sending over a big check across that border, Anderson.
COOPER: All right, well, Jim Acosta, thanks very much.
More on the political and policy implications on a range of issues. Joining us is Brooklyn Professor of Public Policy and former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, also, American Spectator contributor, former Reagan political director and Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord.
[21:35:03] Secretary Reich, what do -- if Donald Trump in fact, if the transition team is talking to folks on Capitol Hill about funding the wall through an appropriations process, I guess Donald Trump could say, well, you know, Mexico will reimburse us down the road, do you see that as a flip-flop?
ROBERT REICH, FORMER U.S. LABOR SECRETARY: Anderson, when talking about flip-flops and Donald Trump, you know, it's difficult because he campaigned in a fact-free universe. I mean, he's -- they told so many lies. Bald-faced lies that if he were going to revert now and start telling the truth that would, itself, be a flip-flop. So, it's hard to get your hands around all of this. I mean, Donald Trump manipulates the truth. Donald Trump manipulates his audiences. He will probably find a way of wiggling out of this.
I mean, he said that he was going to jail Hillary Clinton. He said an awful lot of things. But, obviously, he's not going to do much of what he said he was going to do, particularly things that seemed at the time and are even now, obviously, nonsensical.
My real concern, Anderson, is that in two weeks from tomorrow, we are going to have a new president, not only who has told his followers one thing on the campaign trail and is likely to do something else now, but also, who has a very careless regard for the truth, does not even want intelligence agencies or scientists or the media or anybody who disagrees with him to have any kind of a say at all, doesn't want to take any criticism, doesn't want to hear facts that are at odds with his prior kind of points of view. This is not necessarily a good thing for the country.
COOPER: Jeffrey Lord, would this be a major change or is a reimbursement, if that is in fact, you know, what Donald Trump was signaling months ago, as Jim Acosta was reporting, would that still be fulfilling his campaign pledge if in fact that happened?
JEFFREY LORD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. Anderson, having worked on Capitol Hill in both the House and Senate in the Budget Committee and that sort of thing, I always assumed that we were talking about reimbursement. I mean, to actually build the wall right away, you have to get the appropriations bill. But that there was no doubt in my mind that he was going to make an attempt to get money from Mexico to pay for it at some point. I mean, I just think that that's the logical fact of the matter, the way the United States government works.
REICH: Well, this is completely absurd. Mexico --
LORD: -- I don't think it's a flip-flop at all.
REICH: Come on. Mexico is not going to reimburse the United States for building this wall. What -- how are we going to force Mexico to reimburse the United States? This is an absurd conversation. This is an absurd position.
I mean, this man, this is the problem. I mean, we are all trying to normalize something that is not essentially normal. You don't have somebody campaigning on the base of one set of ideas and coming out and actually -- once he is two weeks away from becoming president, coming out with a completely different position.
LORD: Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, you didn't think he was going to be elected and you weren't alone. A lot of people didn't think he was going to be elected president in the first place and he is.
But let me just talk about something that's normalizing here, and just to slide for a minute to the Russian situation. What I saw today on Capitol Hill was I thought disgraceful. This is exactly one of the reasons why Donald Trump was elected.
President Obama has been in the White House for eight years. Senator McCain -- to bipartisan about this, Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others on that committee have been on the Senate for all of those eight years. And now they're saying something needs to be done about Julian Assange? Where were they? What were they doing? How come this wasn't stopped before? The real story here is that, yes, WikiLeaks exists but why was not it stopped? Why didn't they do something? That's the real story here.
COOPER: But Jeffrey, didn't an awful lot of folks on Capitol Hill go after Julian Assange, talk about he should be prosecuted? That he -- you know, I think Secretary Clinton -- I mean, there was a lot -- there was a lot of outrage many year -- you know, for many years.
LORD: Yeah, but outrage doesn't stop cyber warfare. I mean, they had to do something. They had to act. And they had eight years. I mean, there were all kinds I've been looking through today. All kinds of assaults on the U.S. government, the White House, the State Department, the IRS, NOAA, for heaven's sakes, then National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, the Post Office.
I mean, Sean Hannity was talking about this on his radio show today. I mean, this is disgraceful. This is a bipartisan shame. And these people today ran a hearing that was a classic of why people are so upset about Washington, D.C.
REICH: Can I just -- I really need to be able to help zero in on what's going on in this conversation. I mean, Donald Trump has said that he disagrees with the intelligence agencies, with the FBI, with the CIA, with the NSA.
[21:40:02] He has disparaged them publicly. He has also disparaged other sources of facts such as the media and science. Scientists who talk about global climate change. Donald Trump doesn't want to hear anything he doesn't want to hear. And to disparage the intelligence community when he is going to have to rely on the intelligence community, it seems to me is the height of arrogance and it's very dangerous.
LORD: So --
REICH: I mean, where is Donald Trump getting his facts from if he is not getting them from the intelligence community? Does he have a separate root of facts? A separate kind of source of facts?
LORD: If I may ask you the, when Secretary Clinton and her campaign blamed the FBI director for her loss, you are upset and offended by that?
REICH: I don't think any candidate or any politician should be blaming the FBI, the CIA, or denigrating public officials. I would say that that is wrong and it is wrong of Donald Trump who is going to be president in two weeks.
Wait a minute. And Donald Trump is going to be president in two weeks. He is going to need government scientists. He's going to need intelligence.
LORD: As it said today --
REICH: He is going to need the fed. I mean, all of these independent sources of fact finding and independent sources of -- in power -- I mean, Donald Trump says he disagrees with them and he disparages them. I mean, how can you run a government if you're going to be disparaging all your sources of information?
COOPER: Jeffrey, do you think Donald Trump has disparaged them? He did tweet out saying intelligence in quotes implying that --
LORD: Right. I think he is a fan of the community. But let's face it. The politicization --
COOPER: What makes you think -- I mean, he said he's --
COOPER: But he says he's a fan of the community but has he actually -- all right, has he acted like a fan of the community? Because it seems like, you know, we heard from Clapper today who used the word disparaging. LORD: Yeah. I mean, I totally disagree with that. I mean, I don't think he's disparaging the men and women who put their lives on the line to do this. I think -- I mean, that is just not Donald Trump at all. But I do think he is right to question the leadership. And to be perfectly candid, Anderson --
LORD: -- all over Washington. Because they are going to have a very bureaucratic way of doing business that he will disagree with and they're going to attack him. They're going to attack him anonymously in the press. They're going to attack him through their allies on Capitol Hill. This is how this is going to unfold.
REICH: Who is going to attack whom? The CIA and NSA and the FBI are going to attack Donald Trump? Is that what you're alleging?
LORD: Well, why are all these stories anonymously being leaked by various "intelligence officials'? I mean, who is doing that? Mr. Secretary -- I mean --
REICH: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I want to understand something. I want to understand something. Because you're saying that there is a conspiracy of some sort, that you have all the intelligence agencies conspiring and they're going to try to bring Donald Trump down? Is this the assumption here?
COOPER: No, but certainly -- but -- I mean, you both know, certainly in Washington, D.C., if there is dissatisfaction in a lot of, you know, government agencies, people do leak information. I mean, it's not a vast conspiracy.
REICH: But why is it appropriate for somebody who is president-elect to undercut, to disparage, to demean the intelligence agencies, just as he does the media, just as he does independent scientists and government scientists --
COOPER: I hear you.
REICH: -- and Department of Energy and elsewhere. Why is it appropriate to do that --
REICH: -- simply because you disagree with their conclusions?
COOPER: We actually -- it's a great discussion. We got to leave it there. We're simply out of time.
COOPER: Secretary Reich, always good to have you, Jeffrey Lord as well.
Just ahead tonight, we have breaking news in the battle over Obamacare including potential confrontation over Planned Parenthood.
[21:46:52] COOPER: A lot of breaking news tonight, all -- this time related to Obamacare. House Speaker Paul Ryan says Republicans will strip Planned Parenthood. Millions of dollars in federal funding is part of their push to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Also today, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said the Republicans are not going to drop (ph) a comprehensive replacement plan for Obamacare. Instead, they'll take a step-by-step approach. Our Jeff Zeleny joins us now from Capitol Hill with the latest.
So, who's leading the push to defund Planned Parenthood and what happens to Planned Parenthood if they're successful?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, Speaker Paul Ryan is one of the Republican leaders leading this charge. It's something that Republicans here on Capitol Hill have long wanted to do. And in fact in 2015, they did defund Planned Parenthood. President Obama vetoed that law.
President Trump, of course, has spoken in favor of this but he also has had some a various points of view on Planned Parenthood as he was campaigning for president. So it's an open question how this precedes here. But we're talking about some $400 million or so that Planned Parenthood receives for health care services and other things, so, obviously, it would be up to them to come up with this extra money through other ways. But, Anderson, this is a long ways from being down.
There are two key Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who have been opposed to this. They say tonight that they will be opposed to this as well. And Republicans do have a majority but not that large a majority that they can lose the support. So this is just the very first step, Anderson, of a long process here in repealing Obamacare.
COOPER: And Republicans have been getting a lot of heat for not really having a plan to replace Obamacare mutually if they repeal it. It looks like there might be some kind of plan emerging but it won't be a comprehensive replacement. What do we know about it?
ZELENY: Anderson, Republicans have many ideas to replace Obamacare probably. They've been voting again and again over the last eight years and more to replace this with a different type of ideas. But there's no consensus over what to do exactly.
But John Cornyn, the republican from Texas, the number two republican in the Senate, he told CNN tonight that the Senate does not plan to pass a big comprehensive bill. He said it is a far wiser idea to do a series of smaller bills along the way here so it doesn't collapse under its own weight as he says the Affordable Care Act did, Anderson. So many ideas here.
And President-elect Trump when he becomes president on January 28th, he has yet to weigh in with his exact ideas for this. He says Republicans and Democrats must work together. There are few signs of that so far at least in the opening week --
ZELENY: -- here on Capitol Hill, Anderson.
COOPER: All right.
ZELENY: Jeff Zeleny. Jeff, thanks.
Republicans are clearly on a fast track to make good on their promise to repeal to Obamacare but with what specifically, that is of course the question tonight. Tom Foreman has more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On the campaign trail, the Trump plan to replace Obamacare was for many months of study in generalities. It would be cheaper. It would be better.
TRUMP: It will be a beautiful thing to see.
FOREMAN: But now more details are emerging and it looks very much like a working progress. Some cornerstone ideas have been around a while such as this call to modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines.
TRUMP: So instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it will be a beautiful thing.
[21:50:07] FOREMAN: Skeptics fear that could lead to regulatory gaps which might once again leave folks with chronic illnesses uninsured. A claim Trump dismisses.
TRUMP: Obama lied. Remember this.
COOPER: -- pre-existing condition should be able to get insurance?
FOREMAN: Still his online plan for health care reform makes no mention of those people. Another evolving detail --
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?
TRUMP: I think they're wrong 100 percent.
FOREMAN: But it's not clear yet how his plan would answer such industry concerns nor how he would address the cost of trashing Obamacare which a new nonpartisan analysis puts at $350 billion over 10 years. This team says maybe it won't all have to go. KELLYANNE CONWAY, SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP: So he is committed to retaining those pieces that his advisers will say are working.
FOREMAN: Under the Trump proposal, insurance premiums would be tax deductible and those who use health care spending accounts will get tax breaks too plus the right to carry over unused balances year to year.
TRUMP: It works. It's something that's proven.
FOREMAN: And what about the poor? He suggested time and again he remains committed to the idea of universal health care. Everyone being covered.
TRUMP: We're going to take care of them through maybe concepts of Medicare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: And in that environment figuring out whom to hold accountable can also require some pretty good gathering of intelligence. Anderson?
COOPER: Tom, thanks very much.
Just head, we're going to return to the Chicago story and look at how and whether it's part of a trend of crimes captured on streaming video.
COOPER: We have more on our breaking news from the top of the hour. Four African-Americans facing hate crime and kidnapping charges in Chicago for the beating and torturing of a white special needs teenager. The beating and the taunting, torturing was shown on Facebook live.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have any insight into why they streamed this on Facebook live? Was that motivation for, you know, publicizing this as they did?
CMDR. KEVIN DUFFIN, CHICAGO POLICE: I can't understand why anybody puts anything on Facebook.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, millions use Facebook and a significant number now have seen crimes committed on Facebook. Now, a warning before we bring you the story. Some of what you'll see can be tough to watch. Randi Kaye has more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: June last year in Chicago, Antonio Perkins is on Facebook live drinking tequila with friends. It's the last thing he does before he's shot dead.
[21:55:08] Perkins falls to the ground. His camera does too but keeps recording.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my god. Oh, my god.
KAYE: Police look into whether Perkins' killer used Facebook live to pinpoint his location but a suspect is never identified.
In Norfolk, Virginia, a month after that shooting, three men are hanging out in car singing along to music. All of it streaming over Facebook live. Their music is suddenly interrupted by gun fire. The camera falls but keeps streaming.
More than two dozen shots are fired in just about 20 seconds. A man who comes to their rescue is heard off camera.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at me, look at me, look at me. Stay with me. Hey, hey. Stay relaxed.
KAYE: The victims ask for medical attention.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need an ambulance. There's three of us shot.
KAYE: The men all survived. Weeks later, U.S. Marshals arrested Tony Angelo Roundtree. He's charged with using a firearm during a felony and shooting into an occupied vehicle but says he's innocent. A grand jury could still indict him.
October 2016, this man uses Facebook live to boast about shooting five people and fatally stabbing two others.
MICHAEL VANCE: That's the real deal. This ain't a joke. This ain't a prank. I'm going [ beep ] live.
KAYE: Michael Vance is on the run and using Facebook live to taunt police.
VANCE: This is more intense than what I thought it was going to be, to say the least.
KAYE: But the week long manhunt ends in a shootout. Vance is killed at the scene. That same month this man steals a police cruiser in Tulsa and using the officer's iPad streams his ride live on Facebook.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm in the cop car. Where's my sirens at?
KAYE: After a high speed chase, the man is arrested. Among the charges police say he faces, using an electronic device while driving. He was due in court last month but there's no record of his plea.
In Baton Rouge New Year's Day, an attempted kidnapping live streamed on Facebook. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [ Beep ] pull you out and stop playing with me.
KAYE: That suspect and another man tried to force the victim out of the home, using a slang term for murder to describe their plans on the live feds.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Again, I guess I got to catch your body. I'll get a case with you and stop playing with me.
KAYE: They were later arrested and charged with among other things attempted second degree murder and attempted kidnapping. It appears they haven't yet entered a plea.
Randi Kaye, CNN New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: All have broadcast live. We'll be right back.
[22:00:06] COOPER: And that's it for us. Thanks for watching. CNN TONIGHT with Don Lemon starts now.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news --