Return to Transcripts main page


Fight For Nation's Health Care System Continues; More Than 150 Jewish Institutions Have Been Targeted By Threats; President Trump's Revised Travel Ban Facing Legal Battles; New Video of Michael Brown On the Day He Died. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired March 12, 2017 - 19:00   ET



[19:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I remember we had this conversation before he died and I said would you go to mars if you had the chance to? He said of course I'm going there like 100 percent. Team is always like just about the future, even if it would be, you know, not a happy future, but a future.


ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Don't miss the premier of "Mostly Human" with Laurie Segall streaming on CNN go.

The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts right now.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Great to have you with me on this Sunday as we wind down the weekend. Lots to talk about.

At first, the fight to overall the nation's health care system, how much will the changes and ultimately Obamacare's replacement cost? We will find out tomorrow when the congressional budget office releases its cost analysis on this proposal.

Republican leaders are bracing for the CBO's report to not go their way. It's expected to show fewer people covered than under Obamacare. Now, one very vocal critic of this bill is a Republican, Kentucky senator Rand Paul. He and house speaker Paul Ryan made their arguments earlier today.


SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I think it's basically Obamacare-lite, keeps the subsidies, keeps the taxes for a year, then keeps the Cadillac tax forever, and the tax on good insurance. It keeps the individual mandate, interestingly. You know, Republicans have complaint for years, saying we didn't like the government was going to make you pay a penalty. Well now, instead of paying the penalty to the government, you pay the penalty to the insurance industry.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: The point here though is we have an obligation, we made a promise to the people who elected us we would repeal and replace this law and we basically said this is what we are replacing it with and now we are keeping our word.


CABRERA: Congressional Democrats are accusing the bill's supporters of trying to fast track it to the Senate without house committee hearings. More on that in a moment.

We are also watching this today. Intelligence officials in Congress want to see the evidence to back up President Trump's claim that he was wiretapped last year by his predecessor. They want to see that evidence tomorrow.

Let's bring in our White House correspondent Athena Jones.

Athena, have you heard that we will see either some evidence or some kind of evidence or some kind of retraction of this wiretapping claim?


No. There is no indication from the White House that they are prepared to produce any evidence. The White House officials all the way up to the President have been being asked to do so for the past eight days. After a couple of days of those questions last week, the White House announced that they were calling on these congressional intelligence committees to investigate, said they would have no more comment.

And so I can tell you that this is a question that keeps coming up. The President was standing -- there was reporters standing just a few feet from the President late last week who asked the President three times about any evidence. That reporter was ignored.

Vice President Mike Pence in an interviewed with FOX News late in the week also declined to directly answer a question about the President's unsubstantiated allegations against his predecessor. Vice president Pence then said pointing to these congressional investigations.

So it's not just reporters or Democrats, it's also Republicans on Capitol Hill who are demanding this evidence be provided.

Here is what Arizona Senator John McCain had to say about all of this on "STATE OF THE UNION." Listen.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: President Trump has to provider the American people, not just the intelligence community, but the American people with evidence that his predecessor, former President of the United States was guilty of breaking the law because our director of national intelligence, General Clapper testified that there was absolutely no truth to that allegation. So I think the President has one of two choices. Either retract or to provide the information that the American people deserve because if his predecessor violated the law, President Obama violated the law, we have got a serious issue here, to say the least.


JONES: And it would be a serious issue if that had happened. Now, of course, President Obama has vigorous by denied that this happened. So have other former intelligence officials and including the director of national intelligence under the Obama administration James clapper who said this didn't happen.

And what's interesting to note here, Ana, is that the house intelligence committee sent that letter to the department of justice asking the department of justice to provide these documents. And then the FBI director James Comey, the FBI, of course, being under the purview of the department of justice who last week asked the justice department to publicly review the president's claim because they erroneous.

Now, the department of justice hasn't done so, but it is noteworthy that that is the agency that is being tasked with providing this evidence that many officials say simply doesn't exist -- Ana.

CABRERA: Could the DOJ or the White House were to choose to respond, do we have an indication of what that response would look like, would it be a tweet, a formal statement, a press briefing?

JONES: No. We don't because - and remember, the fact -- there are several officials who say that this evidence doesn't exist. So it wouldn't come in any format if it doesn't exist. As for that retraction that Senator McCain has asked for, there is no indication that that would be forthcoming either. So it is a big question mark what exactly is going to happen tomorrow, Ana.

[19:05:21] CABRERA: All right. Athena Jones, reporting at the White House. Thank you.

I want to get to A. Scott Bolden. He is a Democratic strategist and former chairman of the Washington D.C. Democratic Party. Also with us, political commentator Mike Shields, former chief of staff to Reince Priebus when he was RNC chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good afternoon.

CABRERA: Good afternoon to both of you. Thank you for being with us.

Scott, are you expecting to see something from the White House or the department of justice tomorrow that might satisfy those who have been demanding proof of this wiretapping claim?

A. SCOTT BOLDEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I'm not as concern about satisfaction. I just want to see the evidence. You know, the interesting part of all of this is that President Trump has access to this information. He has got access to Breitbart News and other conservative radio shows. And so I just don't see it happening. This would be Trump's greatest fake news ever, if he comes out with this evidence, whether it was done through (INAUDIBLE). But we know that James Comey, we know that James Clapper, and we know the president, look all denied it. Wouldn't those three know better than Donald Trump? And by the way, wouldn't Donald Trump know? CABRERA: How big of a problem is this if there is no evidence, Mike?

MIKE SHIELDS, CNN DELEGATE ANALYST: Look. I think first of all, what do we know? We know that the justice department was actually -- actually had surveillance on people in the Trump campaign. That was reported in the "New York Times" on the day of President Trump's inauguration. We know that people close to the Trump campaign were being monitored by the justice department of the President's predecessor. I think that that raises some questions that are worth asking.

And so, you know, we are now going to have investigations on the hill. I think what the President did was he tweeted something that caused this question to be asked. We are now talking about it.

It is a serious issue, if a political opponent, if a President of the United States' justice department is looking at a political campaign in an investigation, that's something that's worth vetting, it's worth having an investigation over and it's worth getting the facts on him. So, I think President Trump was pretty effective in putting this issue out there so we can get to the bottom of it.

BOLDEN: He went pretty effective in getting the media and the dialogue change all questions. Except he got us more focused on the whole Russia piece. And if bottom line is this, Donald Trump was very specific about what he alleged. You don't need an investigation whether people in his organization were under surveillance or not, or whether they had an issue with the FISA court.

We are talking about Donald Trump's accusations. You can't apologize for bad behavior and ask for an investigation. No matter how many times you look it, we have specific tweets making personal allegations, incriminating the prior President for wiretapping. There's apology that will clean that up. He either re-tracks or he has nothing there.

CABRERA: And I think that is he issue when you talk about at the beginning the need for an investigation or sorts. The president wasn't calling for an investigation into it. He was saying it as facts, Mike. And so, does that make any difference in your mind?

SHIELDS: Well, the White House has put a statement and have been said. They are asking as part of the investigation on Capitol Hill for this to be included in it. So you go from what he said is a tweet to what the White House has put out as a statement on this. And then they really said we are going to leave to the investigation after this. So when you put all that together, a question was raised. The question was clarified. Let's make this a part of the investigation. We are going to let the investigation bring the facts out. I think that is a pretty legitimate thing to do especially --.

BOLDEN: But there is nothing to investigate.

SHIELDS: Especially when you know that members of your campaign staff were being surveilled by your previous - by the previous President's justice department. I think that is -- there are some political questions that are worth asking there. We are going to find the facts out. Until that happens, we are going to have a big conversation about what a tweet said and that sort of thing, but this has now been put in as part of the investigation and we are going to find out the truth.

BOLDEN: Well, Donald Trump drives that narrative. He drives that narrative. And people on their accounts and what's been under surveillance has nothing to do with what the congressional committee has asked for and what's at stake here, the credibility of this President and his accusation of --.

SHIELDS: I think any time --

BOLDEN: You can't apologize from that and you can't walk away from that.

SHIELDS: I think anytime anyone in a democracy at a political campaign is involved in their investigated, we want to know everything about that. You want to know why that happened. Why did the President's justice department, why were they investigating someone involved in a campaign. We understand that there were, you know, there's questions about the Russian involvement. There's a reason to have that. But as soon as you start getting into someone's political campaign and their operatives being investigated and surveilled and listened to, you want to know is what is it that was being listened to? There's a political campaign going on. As a part of Democracy, let's get out into the sunlight why they were being listened to. And I think that's really what the White House is asking for --.

CABRERA: Tomorrow we hope to have some answers, guys. Let me interject here because I want to move on to health care. We will find out more information hopefully tomorrow. There's this dead line for from the congressional committee to say turn over the evidence. Stay tuned for that.

Meantime, health care is a big deal. There are millions of people in this country who stand to see their health care changing based on what happens with the Republicans plan to repeal and then replace Obamacare.

Now, Republican rand Paul says on CBS this morning that speaker Paul Ryan's approached on this issue has been quote "my way or the highway."

Meantime Democrat Cory Booker said this.


[19:10:38] SEN. CORY BOOKER (D), NEW JERSEY: That's when we are. The Republicans can't just force this down our throats. It's going to knock a lot of folks out, interrupt long-term care, hurt good working class folks. So I don't understand this almost. I don't understand what their political strategy because this is bad politics.


CABRERA: Mike, is it bad politics?

SHIELDS: Well, I tell you what's bad politics is leaving the status quo in place. I mean, Obamacare is cratering. That over one-third of the counties in our country right now only offer one health care plans because of Obamacare. Families are being hurt every day because they are having to choose now between the now super expensive plans that they got from Obamacare or paying for education, food and the other things that are part of the family is unsustainable.

So Republicans are keeping their word. They are repealing Obamacare. They are going to replace it with something better. What that looks like at the end of the day is actually what we are debating right now. And that is why I disagree with Senator Paul.

If you want to see something that gets rammed down your throat, look at how the Democrats essentially wrote the original Obamacare law in Nancy Pelosi's office. And then when she was asked about it, she said, look, we are going to have to pass the bill before we found out what is in the bill. That's what look rammed something down in someone's throat. We are actually going through this debate. People in the Republican Party on different parts of it are weighing in on the debate. I suspect that by the time this statement gets through the house and the Senate it will look a little bit different than it does now. And that's what you are supposed to have.

And I think one of the interesting aspects of this, is this is what the legislative process looks like. We haven't seen this for about six to eight years. And now, you are actually watching it happens. You're seeing senators from different partying weighing in on this. This is not ramming something down someone's throat. What the Democrats did with Obamacare is the very definition of ramming down someone's throats. And the voters rejected. And we have now won six elections in a row. Based on Obamacare.

BOLDEN: And if I may, I hear a big ramming sound and it's coming from the Republican Party, the party of no. And let me just say this. They passed part of this bill in the heat of the night and they have got every stake holder including significant members on the Senate Republican side and the house side who aren't supportive of this and every outside analysis says not only will it not work, that people are going to lose health care. It's not going to increase it. And there's going to be up to a $600 billion tax cut for the very companies like medical companies, device companies, pharmaceuticals who are going to benefit from this. In reality this really isn't about health care, it's about huge tax cuts and Republicans want to pass through.

CABRERA: And I just be clear that it has passed some committees but it has not gone to a house vote, nor has it not gone through the Senate. So we are still waiting to see where it goes from here. And there is a strong divide throughout Congress right now on this issue. So we can expect perhaps some evolution when it comes to this bill. But we are going to keep talking about it and see where it --.

BOLDEN: Well, right now Democrats and Republicans all hate - agree that this is a bad bill at this point SHIELDS: Well, that is not true. This bill is going to pass the

Republican support. It will pass to Senate. It will be changed a little bit. Mark my words, President Trump will sign a replacement to the Obamacare law.

BOLDEN: Both side are on the record against this bill right now. That's the fact.

CABRERA: We will see, gentlemen. Thank you so much. A. Scott Bolden and Mike Shields. We appreciate your comments today.

BOLDEN: Thank you.

SHIELDS: Thank you.

CABRERA: New questions tonight to swirl around the firing of this man, Preet Bharara. He was one of 46 U.S. attorneys ordered to resign by the justice department. Democrats are taking particular offense to his termination partly because he was originally told he could keep his job.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), MINORITY LEADER: I believe the President's decision to change his mind and fire Preet says far more about the President than it does about Preet.


CABRERA: Now Republicans are saying this was just business as usual. Senator John McCain, a frequent critic of President Trump came to the President's defense this morning.


MCCAIN: Other administrations have done the same thing, perhaps not in as abrupt a fashion, but that's what elections have consequences.


CABRERA: Coming up, a critical moment for the push to repeal and replace Obamacare. `

The congressional budget office set to release its assessment of the Republican plan. The party itself is split over the bill so can it clear Congress and is it sound policy? We will take a look, a deeper look at those questions next.


[19:18:59] CABRERA: There's division in the Republican ranks over the American health care act, the plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Listen to what House speaker Paul Ryan and conservative senator Rand Paul had to say about it today on the Sunday morning news shows.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RYAN: When you are governing party getting consensus among your wide big ten party, everybody doesn't get what they want. But we are getting much better policy here.

PAUL: If we get what we have got from Ryan, Obamacare-lite, he will not have the votes and we have to get to that point before two negotiations begin. Right now, I think there is a charm offensive going on. Everybody is being nice to everybody because they want us to vote for this but we are not going to vote for it.


CABRERA: So this friction is all coming before the congressional budget office, even release as it score of the bill tomorrow which will tell us just how many people, the White House back bill is going to cover and just how much it will cost.

Former Mitt Romney public policy director and Hoover Institution fellow Lanhee Chen is joining me now via Skype from Mountain View, California.

Thank you Lanhee for being here with us. You support this new legislation. You call it a good start, but does this division that we are now seeing within the GOP concern you at all?

[19:20:12] LANHEE CHEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: CHEN, FORMER MITT ROMNEY PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR: It is a little concerning, Ana. I mean, I think some of the criticism, frankly, is just a little bit too stride dent. You know, the notion of calling it Obamacare-lite, that doesn't really advanced the discussion very much.

The reality, Ana, this is actually a bill that has a lot of fundamental reform in it, whether it's Medicaid of the way that tax credit are administered to help those who are uninsured and who need coverage. There is a lot of things about the bill that are good. It is not perfect by any means. But I'm not sure that the debate is being advanced by people like Rand Paul saying what they are saying, quite frankly.

CABRERA: What is so good about the bill that you see?

CHEN: Well, I think there is a couple of thing. As I mentioned, first of all, I do think it does engage in some pretty fundamental reform of Medicaid, which was a program originally intended with the most creative in the 60s to cover low income moms and their kiss, it is expanded over the years. Obamacare, of course, expanded it pretty significantly. And this program reforms it to gives states more flexibility but also potentially to give the federal government more fiscal certainty, more predictability about how much money the program is going to cost year after year.

And I do think the tax credits it administers will simplify the system a little bit and hopefully be able to get coverage to those who need it. I do think there's some improvement in how the bill that needs to be improved. But as a framework, it is a great start. CABRERA: Those who have been opposed to this bill say the numbers do

not add up. There's not going to be enough money that are coming from these state grants or from these tax credit substitute what is already provided by Obamacare.

CHEN: Yes. I think that will be one of the questions. We will get a little bit more visibility on it when the congressional budget office releases its estimates tomorrow morning. I do think that one of the issues that we haven't really talked a lot about yet is the interaction to all the different pieces of this bill. So for example, I do think that the changes to Medicaid are going to produce pretty substantial savings. I think that will help pay for some of the bill. But ultimately, we are not going to know until we get some kind of estimate either from the Republicans in Congress or from CBO about where the bill is headed from a revenue and spending perspective.

CABRERA: How important is that CBO score?

CHEN: I think it's significant. I do think it will be part of the debate. I have been cautioning people not to treat the CBO estimate as gospel, if you will. If you go back to some of the estimates they did around Obamacare when it first passed, they were actually quite far often, some situations particularly if you look at coverage numbers.

But I think it is going to be important because that will be the only numbers out there, first of all. And second of all, I do think that the congressional budget office broadly has credibility to talk about these things. So some Republicans who are out there trying to completely discredit this thing, I'm not sure that is the right approach. But at the end of the day, they are not going to be perfect. I do think directionally they will be on above parts. So I think that is why their estimates are going to be important.

CABRERA: Help me understand one very fundamental issue. And that is how does this new bill that's been put out there reduce health care costs? How does it become more affordable for everybody?

CHEN: You know, one of the things about the affordable care act and about Obamacare that's been problematic as it is going on are the premiums. The premiums have risen year after year. And so, one of the things this bill tried to do is to really distinguished why is that is happening.

Now, it is more limited than I think a lot of Republican would won. But one of the things it does, for example, as you have noted is to give states some funding to help them deal with those who have preexisting conditions. Part of the reason why costs have been driven up, why premiums have been driven up is because, frankly, you have a lot more sick people in the insurance pools than healthy people. So one of the things this bill will do is to begin to take those sick people, help them separately, so that premiums for everybody else and cost for everybody else can come down.

CABRERA: Those ideas sound good, but let me try to figure this out. Because if you don't mandate everybody has health care, so some people who may be healthier and don't believe they need health care is the argument would leave the insurance market. Now, you are left with a pool of people who might need health care more, maybe they are sicker, may be they are older and they don't want to take any risks. So why would the insurance companies drive the premiums up even more if they don't have the healthier younger populations to compensate?

CHEN: Yes. Part of what this bill does, Ana, is to separate out the folks who are sicker and to subsidize them and help them separately. So that the people who are in the main pool, if you will, in theory are going to be healthier and younger.

Now, the challenge here is the bill does put in place a penalty if you are not continuously insured. I'm not sure it's exactly calibrated the right way to encourage the right behavior. So they are going to have to work on that piece a little bit. But the idea is rather than mandating that everybody has insurance and penalizing them if they don't, the idea is that if you don't carry insurance, if you don't take the responsible step of having coverage, then you will be subject to a penalty. The idea is that, hopefully, will encourage the younger healthier to stay in the insurance pool.

[19:25:03] CABRERA: All right. Lanhee Chen, thank you for your time.

CHEN: Thank you.

CABRERA: This Wednesday night, don't forget to tune in, Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash have a live town hall with the health and human services secretary Tom Price, who of course, is going to be in-charge of making sure that whatever comes in this legislation go into effect. He will answer your question about the new proposal about Obamacare and what comes next. That's Wednesday night here on CNN at 9:00 p.m. eastern. We will be right back.


[19:29:40] CABRERA: At least five Jewish community centers have received bomb threats today alone. Now, these threats are only adding to an already alarming number of anti-Semitic hate crimes taking place all over the country over the last several weeks.

CNN's Sara Ganim has been tracking this for us.

And Sara, do we know now about what these threats - where these are coming from?

SARA GANIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What we know that this is another rash or rise as we have seen since the start of the year. Now it's more than 150 Jewish institutions that have been targeted by these threats and this as we -- the Jewish community celebrates the holiday forum. There were several of them just today, Jewish community centers in Vancouver, in Milwaukee, in Indianapolis, in Houston. We see bomb threats here in New York, the Rochester JCC had their second threat this week alone. And they had to evacuate for part of the day. They got an all clear this afternoon to reopen. But remember, every time one of these happen, services these centers provide for the community have to stop while they investigate. I spoke to the director for the center of the study of hate and

extremism about what's been happening across the country.


[19:30:52] BRIAN LEVIN, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR HE STUDY OF HATE AND EXTREMISM: We don't know exactly what the motivation is, but what I think we can say is for the person who is doing this, they are very committed to it, because we are now seeing wave after wave of these kind of threats that's virtually unprecedented in recent years.


GANIM: And there was an arrest earlier this month, the man accused of being behind at least eight of these threats that this clearly continued, Ana.

CABRERA: Right. So he clearly is behind all of this threats.

GANIM: Right.

CABRERA: And we now know there are dozens, well over a hundred, as you put it. But it's not just these Jewish community centers that are receiving the threats, right? It is hate crimes in general that are up.

GANIM: Hate crime, hate groves, just to put this all into a little bit of context. Across the country, hate crimes are up, and in many places, the numbers are being driven by the anti-Semitic crime. So here in New York, for example, anti-Semitic crimes are up 189 percent since the start of the year. That's compared to the beginning of 2016. And across the country, crimes against the Jewish community actually account for more than 50 percent of all hate crimes against faith based communities, Ana.

CABRERA: Sara Ganim, thank you. Appreciate that.

Coming up, President Trump, he has a revised travel ban out there set to take effect this week. He is getting some unlikely support now from a group of Muslims.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His message is he's not -- it's not he's hating all the Muslims. He is just trying to protect this country as a President, that's his job.


CABRERA: The response to their support of the President's executive order next.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. ]


[19:36:36] CABRERA: President Trump's revised travel ban is facing legal battles before it even takes effect.

Here is the latest on it. The U.S. district judge who issued the order to stop the original ban says he is not quite ready to rule on whether this current restraining order is also going to apply to the new travel ban.

Meantime, on Wednesday, a federal judge who supposed to take up the lawsuit against the ban that was brought by Hawaii. Now the President's order would prevent people from six majority Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days, Iraq is no longer on that list. And this is set to into effect on Thursday.

CNN's Martin Savidge spoke to a group of Muslims, two of who support President Trump and ask them what they thought about this new travel ban.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tulat and Rasheed (INAUDIBLE) faced an anger and ugliness they had never seen before, thanks to Donald Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had several close friends who turned their bark on me.

SAVIDGE: Pakistani Americans and Muslim, the backlash wasn't against their faith, but their politics.

Rasheed campaigned for Trump and twice got to meet him. Khan and are Rasheed even went to Trump's inauguration. All of which earned them, scorn from fellow Muslims.

DR. WAQAS KHAN, TRUMP SUPPORTER: I have to receive for comments like I never know you were a racist. You're anti-Islamic, you're a traitor, Brown that are trying to be white, brownie, all these slurs.

SAVIDGE: Trump's campaign rhetoric particularly about Muslims bothered many people, including (INAUDIBLE) the same bowling book mask and is a life-long Republican who voted for Hillary Clinton.

SALEEM SHEIKH, CLINTON VOTER: I was quite concerned about some of Trump's statements at that time.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

SAVIDGE: How could you support a ban who seemed to be so anti-Muslim?

KHAN: When the statement about the Muslim ban came out, I was kind of offended, to be very honest, but then I took a deep breath and I looked at the message behind the statement.

SAVIDGE: The message Rasheed and khan heard wasn't of discrimination. Instead, they heard Trump identifying a problem they see in their own faith, one they say American leaders and even many Muslims up until now have an openly faced, violent radical extremism.

KHAN: The memoir is between is read in Islam, it is not outside Islam. And the first war we have to win is the war that they promised are the moderates have to win against the radicals.

SAVIDGE: Terrorism that then say is by-product of that war. And Trump is taking action against some Muslims to protect all Americans, still they admit, the first travel ban was a mistake.

TALAT RASHID, TRUMP VOTER: I think that was too much. I mean, I did not agree with him in the beginning.

SAVIDGE: Do you agree with him now?

RASHID: It been better now, it is. But again, you know, his messages, he is not -- it's not is that he's hitting all the Muslims. He is just trying to protect this country as a President. That's his job.

SAVIDGE: Saleem disagrees saying the best way to protect America is not by shaving people out. Rasheed and khan say that kind of thinking is too broad in this world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) American citizen. So want to look and see America as being number one before that I think it ca do that by reaching out to the people.

[19:40:04] SAVIDGE: Like many of Donald Trump's supporters, Rashid and Khan say that kind of thinking is too idealistic in today's frightening words.

And I think national security should be beyond any politics, should be beyond in the religion. There should a top priority being an American.

SAVIDGE: As you heard, all three of those men are from Pakistan and Pakistan is not under any travel ban from the current Trump administration. I asked them whether they think Pakistan should be considered. After all, there are question about and there was the fact that Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan. All three men were unanimous, no, they said. There's no need.

Martin Savidge, CNN, Neighbor Ville, Illinois.


CABRERA: Interesting report. Thank you, Martin.

Still ahead here tonight, new video of Michael Brown on the day he died. How this could change the narrative surrounding his death at the hands of a Missouri police officer.


[19:45:07] CABRERA: Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri is back in the spotlight. A new documentary called "Stranger Fruit" suggests there is a twist in the police narrated, a claim to show never before released video of the 18-year-old black teenager just hours before he was shot and killed by a white police officer.

I have to be clear, CNN has not verified the authenticity of this video, but we have reached out to the Ferguson police department to St. Louis county police as well as attorneys involved in this case. Now, the documentary premiered just last night at the south by southwest festival in Austin, Texas.

Let's go ahead and bring in CNN Diane Gallagher for more on this controversial documentary.

Diane, what can you tell us?

DIANE GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Ana, I actually just spoke with the attorney for the Ferguson market and its employees. And he said that while this video may have come as a surprise to everyone else in the nation, as far as he's concerned, it's not new. He knew about it the entire time, and he says that it doesn't really change anything at least what happened that day in that store. He says the documentary's version of events is false and simply based on speculation.


GALLAGHER (voice-over): It's just after 1:00 in the morning on the day that Michael Brown would be killed and this newly released surveillance video shows him inside the Ferguson market and liquor store, a place he would be accused of robbing 11 hours later. Now, CNN cannot confirmed the video's authenticity. It is part of a new documentary called "Stranger Fruit" which debuted at the south by southwest festival on Saturday.

It challenges the police narrative that Brown stole from a convenient store moments before he was shot and killed by officer Darren Wilson back in August 2014. It argued Brown's altercation with the store employees later that day shown on this video that was released by the Ferguson police, stem from a misunderstanding tight when earlier apparent drug deal with the clerks which the film maker Jason Pollack suggest it is happening in the previously unreleased video.

Now, the 18-year-old appears to give the clerks a small bag. Pollack claims it is marijuana. They give Brown a bag of cigarillos which he takes but then turns and gives back to the clerk before leaving. The film suggests that Brown did not return to rob the store later that day but to get his stuff back.

Protest erupted across the country after Brown's death. And many protesters are upset with the Ferguson police department's decision to release a surveillance video of the altercation at the store because they felt it demonized Brown and appeared to justify police's use of force.

The original Ferguson police report does not mention Brown's overnight visit or that there's any video beyond what was released. The visit was briefly mentioned in a St. Louis county police report. CNN contacted St. Louis PD which said it could not confirm the new video's authenticity. But that regardless, it would have been irrelevant to their investigation into the encounter between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson.

Wilson who resigned from the Ferguson police department claimed he was assaulted by Brown and that he feared for his life. A grand jury and any federal civil right investigation declined to indict Wilson.


GALLAGHER: Now we reached out to the Ferguson police department to ask about the video and why it wasn't released before but they asked us to call back on Monday when the public information officer would be in.

We also attempted to contact the attorney for the Ferguson market. He hasn't gotten back to us yet but he did do an interview with the "New York Times" in which he dispute the documentary's version of events.

CABRERA: Diane Gallagher, thank you.

Let's go ahead and bring in a legal expert now to discuss the implications of this new video and new documentary. Joining me now defense attorney and trial lawyer Page Pate.

Page, what's your initial reaction to what we have just seen on that video on this new documentary?

PAGE PATE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Ana, I don't know that this new video changes the analysis of whether officer Wilson should have been charge with a crime in the killing of Michael Brown. But it certainly calls into question the reason why the Ferguson police department decided to release only the more recent video or the one closest in time to when he was shot.

I think it was clear at the time that the Ferguson police department wanted to push back on the public attention, the narrative that officer Wilson had used excessive force when he shot Michael Brown. And the way I think they did that was to isolate that part of the surveillance video that suggests Michael Brown was acting in some sort of violent or confrontational manner. I don't think either one of the surveillance videos should have been part of the legal analysis of what officer Wilson did.

CABRERA: Now, CNN did ask this film maker to explain further his version of what happened in this video. Let's listen.


JASON POLLOCK, DIRECTOR, STRANGER FRUIT: We have spoken to many people in the community and trading a little bag for something at the store is very, very common. There's a drug dealer, we found out in the store. So what Michael did, he is not a drug dealer, OK? He traded a little bit for $20 of cigarillos. And that happens all the time in communities where there's not a lot of money, you barter with each other. What happened at the store is common place. And you can see what it

is because they smell it. He takes it and they smell it. What were they doing with that? They brought it up to their noses. So it's very clear what happened.


[19:50:21] CABRERA: So, Page, from a legal perspective, does the filmmaker's theory in that video itself raise enough questions to warrant a second look?

PATE: Ana, I don't think there should be a second look into whether officer Wilson should have been charged based upon this new video. Now, whether you agree or disagree with the decision not to charge him, what really mattered in that analysis is what officer Wilson did when he encountered Michael Brown, not whether or not Michael Brown actually committed a robbery at that store.

CABRERA: How should it have been handled in the investigation? Should all that video have been put out there initially or should all of it just never have been made public?

PATE: Well, I mean, that is a great question. I think if you are focused only on the legal analysis of excessive force you would not have released any of that video because the only thing that video could have done, the part that was released, it could have affected the grand jury that came in to review the charges against officer Wilson.

Remember, by the time they were reviewing the charge or potential charges, to decide if they were going to indict him, they had just seen the surveillance video where it suggest Michael Brown was being confrontational. And that's not fair. If there was more to that story, they should have presented to the grand jury. But ultimately, I think the focus needed to be on what officer Wilson did or did not do that day.

CABRERA: St. Louis county police, as Diane mentioned in her report, in their statement called this video irrelevant to their investigation - investigating the shooting itself of Michael Brown because it was so far from when that shooting actually happened.

What I'm hearing you say is that that's a good point, but could it affect or have an impact in the civil proceeding, since that has not taken place yet?

PATE: Well, I think so, because then I think a civil jury will look into the decision that was made by the Ferguson police department to selectively release part of this surveillance video where they doing that to try to cover up for officer Wilson, to try to make it more or less likely that he would been charged? If so, I think that could be evidence that they were trying to I guess put their thumb on the scale of making the decision of whether or not to charge that officer with a crime.

CABRERA: All right. Page Pate, we appreciate you joining us. Thanks so much.

PATE: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: Coming up live in the CNN NEWSROOM. The photo-op that has people wondering if Hillary Clinton is hunting President Trump.


[19:56:47] CABRERA: On tonight's new episode of finding Jesus, we take a closer look at the site of one of the bible's greatest stories. It's the place where Jesus is said to have brought Lazarus back from the dead.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE), on the outskirts of Jerusalem, derived from the Greek, Lazarian, it means the place of Lazarus, and it's believed to be the site where Jesus raised his friend from the dead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The tradition tying Lazarus to this spot is strong. And it is not only a Christian tradition, the Muslim faith also venerates Lazarus as having been here on this place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a record of worship here since the fourth century. Today the tomb believed to be that of Lazarus is 32 feet underground.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This chamber is actually built at a much later date after Jesus, but it's built over this small place here, which is actually carved out of the bedrock. This is understood by tradition to be the tomb of Lazarus.


CABRERA: a BRAND NEW EPISODE OF "Finding Jesus" airs tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on CNN.

Finally this hour, Hillary Clinton looking over President Trump's shoulder this week, literally.

Here's Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When you go on a White House tour, it's always possible you will run into the guy who lives there. A group of mostly kids went nuts when the President popped out from behind a partition. But you know who you wouldn't expect to meet? Hillary Clinton. But there she was, the twitter verse noticed, Hillary photo bombed Potus. Hilarious. This one's for you, "SNL."

It was more than a dozen years ago that Hillary unveiled her portrait to go in those of other first ladies. Now, Hillary is hunting President Trump, someone changed the cable news banner to read, Trump claims Clinton spying on him. That's where Obama's bug is hidden. Meanwhile, the real Hillary was getting an award from a girl's

organization in New York City.


MOOS: She is up all right, on the wall. And President Trump was gesturing to 10-year-old jack Cornish, from a Christian school in Alabama to come pose with him. But Jack didn't just smile for the cameras, he made a circle with his fingers, prompting the question what sign is the kid throwing up? Maybe he was imitating one of the President's favorite hand gestures or perhaps it was just an old- fashioned OK. Through it all, Hillary smiled.

The moral of the story, you never know who is lurking over your shoulder. At least Hillary didn't give the President the cold shoulder, or worse yet -- leap off the wall.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.


CABRERA: All right, thanks to Jeanne Moos. There's much more ahead here in the NEWSROOM. It all starts right now.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

Hello on this Sunday night. First stop, what to do about the nation's health care system. Republicans got control of the White House and Congress promising to change it.