Return to Transcripts main page


U.S. Officials: Info Suggests Trump Associates May Have Coordinated With Russians; Manafort Pushes Back On Report He Worked To Help Putin's Government; Police: At Least 4 Dead, 40 Hurt In London Terror Attack; Staking Their Lives On Trump's Health Care Promise. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired March 22, 2017 - 21:00   ET



[21:00:41] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Topping this hour of "360," a CNN exclusive. CNN has learned new details that the FBI investigation into potential links between individuals associated with Trump campaign and the Russian government. CNN's Pamela Brown and Evan Perez joining us now. They broke the story along with Justice Reporter Shimon Prokupecz.

Evan, first, what did you learn?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, U.S. officials tell CNN that FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Now, FBI Director James Comey made his bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings.

This information is what was raising the suspicions of FBI counter intelligence investigators that the coordination may have take in place, though some officials caution that the information was not yet conclusive and that the investigation is still ongoing. But the FBI has not commented, nor would the White House, though Trump officials have denied that there's any evidence of collusion.

COOPER: And, Pamela, I mean, this does gives us more insight into what Director Comey knew when he spoke on Monday.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it certainly does, Anderson. If you recall, in addition to Comey saying the investigation includes looking at connections to Trump associates, he also explain what it means that the investigation is being done in the first place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE TURNER, (R) OHIO: Don't you need some action or some information besides just attending a meeting, having been paid to attend a conference, that a picture was taken, or that you traveled to a country before your open to investigation for counterintelligence by the FBI?

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: The standard is, I think there's a couple different at play, a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.


BROWN: And one law enforcement official said the information enhanced suggests, "People connected to the campaign were in contact and it appear they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But there are other U.S. officials we've spoken with who say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far, since it's largely circumstantial, and the FBI cannot yet prove that collusion did in fact take place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of this investigation, Anderson.

COOPER: And what sort of coordination is under investigation, Evan?

PEREZ: Well, most of the FBI is focused on the stolen and published e-mails by WikiLeaks, including those from the DNC and from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman. U.S. officials said that the information being investigated was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled, but that former British intelligence official who compiled it for Trump's political opponent though we should note that the dossier also suggested that there was this coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.

COOPER: And, Pamela, do we know who's being investigated at this point?

BROWN: So, our sources would not say who connected to Trump was being investigated on this information, but we do know the FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page, for their contacts with Russians known to U.S. intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts.

One of the obstacles here, Anderson, we're told through officials is that the FBI, in trying to find conclusive intelligence, is having a tough time, because communication between Trump associates and Russians have ceased in recent months, given the public focus on Russia ties to the Trump campaign. In fact, some Russian officials have even changed their methods of communications making monitoring more difficult, Anderson.

COOPER: All right, fascinating information. Pam, Evan, thanks very much for the breaking news. Back with the panel. Joining us this hour, CNN Senior Political Commentator, "Axefiles" podcast anchor and former top Obama Adviser David Axelrod. So, David, I mean, President Trump has in the past called the Russia coverage ruse engineered by Democrats to make up for lost campaign. Can he continue to claim that -- well, of course, he can, but credibly claim that going forward given what we now know about the FBI investigation?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think he will as long as he can. And I'm not sure that credibly is all that much important to him.

[21:05:02] But, look, I think that what you see is this inexorable march of information that begins to point in a direction. We know now, and it's been confirmed that the Russians were behind the stealing of the e-mails from the DNC, John Podesta and the leaking by WikiLeaks. Those things have been confirmed.

And now, if you add the component that there were people who are involved with the Trump campaign or close to the Trump campaign who are in communication with the Russians, relative to this, I mean, that's a very explosive story. And if this is proven, and if the FBI and if the Justice Department comes to that conclusion, you know, this is a major, major, major scandal and it will rock this government.

COOPER: Carl Bernstein, you agree with that, yes? And you believe is a major?

CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. This is where this story has been going. It's what the original intelligence investigation was about, to see if there was collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Trump organization with the Russians. And it appears from what is being found out by the intelligence community that there was such communication.

And in response to this, and I want to take one second to play this out. In response to this, what we are watching Chairman Nunes do, what we are watching the Trump White House do is to try to make the issue here, how the press got its information and elevated this story to the point where people in this country are concerned about it? And what they are doing, talking about these leaks, et cetera, et cetera, or alleged leaks, is akin to as if in Watergate, as the White House did, they tried to make the issue how we at the "Washington Post" were getting our information rather than the conduct of the president and his men.

So, we have these two parallel things happening at once. It seems to be the defense of the White House. And, oh, no, it's not that there is all this evidence mounding up about possible collusion with the Russians, and there's another bombshell story that I think you're going to talk about in a little while tonight, broken by the A.P. about Paul Manafort and how he actually proposed about 10 years ago to work in behalf of Putin. On paper he did it.

So, to make this information look secondary, we have this smoke screen by the White House and Chairman Nunes and it's important to separate the two and look at them that way.

COOPER: Yeah, I mean, Maggie, in the last hour, you said it's sort of a low-grade fever for the White House, not going away anytime soon. I mean, is there anything in the administration do to more effectively deal with this? Or, you know, I mean, they could very easily say, "Look, we embrace this investigation, but we've never heard those words from them."

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's exactly right. I mean, I think that among the things that they keep doing to Carl's point is they keep saying, you know, it's not us, it's you. It's the leaks. It's this. It's that. And it's hard to know that certainly is frequently the type of response that you see when there is something to hide.

However, it is also something, having covered Trump a very long time, that is his reflexive knee jerk response to almost everything in terms of how he response. It's to turn it back on to whoever raised it with maximum heat lamp response going in the other direction. So, I don't know what it indicates. I do know that Carl is correct, it is infective and has meant that vastly more people have heard about all of this.

What the White House could do is be more discipline in this response. They could -- when Sean Spicer says we're not going to, you know, answer questions about President Trump saying that Obama tapped him, which does header back to this because Trump raised it because he wanted to throw the focus off of questions about his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, instead of -- when he says we're not going to answer questions about that, don't answer questions about that anymore. Say, you know, we've talked about this into you point --


HABERMAN: -- we welcome the investigation. That is traditionally what we have seen a typical administration do during any kind of volatility like this. Again, I'm not saying that that's great if there is something that is more obfuscation, but at least it is a more focused measured way. This is just digging themselves in further.

COOPER: David Chalian, I mean, it is ironic that the Republicans talked about what a mess it would be if Hillary Clinton was elected and she was under federal investigation. We heard that time and time again during the campaign. You're seeing a version of that now, not the president himself but his campaign and it is a distraction for him if nothing else.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Certainly is ironic, and there's no doubt it is a distraction. There are certain things as you were just talking about with Maggie, though, that I think it would be relatively easy for the president to engage on.

[21:10:03] For instance, it's an accepted fact that even President Trump at his press conference when he was president-elect in New York acknowledged that Russia did indeed meddle with our election. Well, he's the sitting President of the United States of America. Don't you think that should be something of concern to him? But he expresses not of that.

So, there are avenues for him to sort of express outrage without necessarily saying, "Come, look at every single thing I have," if he doesn't want to be that open. He certainly could join in the fact that it is not a good thing that it is not a good thing that Russia has meddled in this election.

COOPER: David Axelrod, I mean, how much longer can the White House continue to point to General Clapper's comments, the former DNI who said he hadn't seen anything conclusive prior to January 20th, because now we're nearing ending of March and the investigation is continuing.

AXELROD: Well, I guess until something is publicly declared by those who are investigating he can continue to do that. But to David's point, it would be good, and to Maggie's, if they reacted in a more disciplined way and so on, it would be good if he acknowledged how insidious the efforts of the Russians were to interfere in our election and how brazen. But, it'd be completely inconsistent with the way he's behaved over the past two years.

I mean, one of the things that he's done that has brought suspicion onto himself and his operation is that his language toward Russia and Putin from the beginning has been weirdly welcoming, excusing of, really terrible misdeeds on the part of Putin, likening the U.S. to Russia in its practices and so on. All of this has only raised the temperature on himself and caused people to ask the question, what is it with him and Russia? What is going on here?

And so, he has made this environment worse for himself. I suspect he will continue to try and Bogart (ph) his way through this until someone declares that they've come to a conclusion in this investigation. And if the conclusion comes to -- if the conclusion is that there was in fact collusion, then he has to make a choice. Is he going to say this is all political, the intelligence community, the Justice Department, they're all involved in a conspiracy against him? How does he handle that? I think that's going to be a tough moment for him.

COOPER: David, did you say Bogart his way through this?



AXELROD: I know how much you like movie references. I know you like movie references.

COOPER: We've got to take a -- I'm sorry, Carl. Go ahead, Carl.

BERNSTEIN: I think we need to make clear what the president is doing here. He is trying to invent a new conspiracy, laid at Obama, laid at the outgoing intelligence community of the United States, laid at the press and laid at supposed leaking that is more important than what the Russians did and more important in what he is laying out in this conspiracy than what he and his people might have done. So, it's -- the lines are now drawn and the question is, can it be investigated by the House Committee? And it's very doubtful and why we need a special prosecutor and a 9/11-type commission to get to the bottom of all this.

COOPER: You know what's interesting, Maggie, I mean, to Carl's point about, you know, we sort of -- you know, it's been what, 60-some days. We kind of know the playbook now, you know. I mean, the morning of the House Intelligence Committee hearings, I guess it was Monday morning, you know, he sent out tweets about Hillary Clinton and Russia. I mean, it's all of a piece. And after a while, once you're onto it, it's sort of like a poker tale, you kind of know what cards they're holding.

HABERMAN: Right, except I think to Carl's point. It isn't just 60 days, right, it's two years. I mean, he's been doing a version of this, but he didn't change in office. And then I think that there was this expectation that the office, no matter who assumes it, changes the man. So far we are not seeing that with Donald Trump.

This is same Donald Trump we have known for very, very long time, frankly, predating this campaign and we have seen this trick, we know the tail, but we know detail, that doesn't mean that voters do or the public does or that they are fully understanding how unusual this is. How unusual it was to see the head of the FBI sit at a committee hearing and confirms on the record that this investigation that relates to a sitting president is taking place.

So I think to Carl's point, pointing out the unusualness and the enormity of it consistently I think is really important, but at the end of the day, I still don't know how much new information we have.

COOPER: Right.

HABERMAN: The problem for Trump is, to your point, he is unable to let any sort of pitch go by his head, and he is unable to handle this in a disciplined way.

COOPER: Yeah. Everyone, appreciate it. Coming up next, more on what Carl mentioned earlier, this notion of a smoke screen or what we just talked about regarding President Trump's tell.

President Trump is just weight in on Twitter on what the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee did today. It left some jaws on the floor and raised doubts about among Democrats as Carl just said about whether the committee can impartially do its job.

[21:15:07] That raised more calls for an independent commission. Later, some of the lives at stake in the health care debate, including people who say they like Obamacare, despite voting for the man who campaigned on the promise of repealing it.


COOPER: Before the break, Carl Bernstein and Maggie Haberman touched on this. It all began at lunch time with (inaudible) like his starting revelation from Congressman Devin Nunes, House Intelligence Committee chairman, the Republican who is supposed to be leading a bipartisan independent investigation of Russian hacking and possible connection between Russia and the Trump campaign and leaks. It was followed by President Trump claiming partial vindication on his tweets of wiretapping and Democratic lawmakers loudly questioning the intelligence committee's impartiality.

And now, just moments ago, the wide ride (ph) we're on today ended when the Manafort go car (ph) pulled into the White House garage and president retweeting this from talk show host Bill Mitchell. It reads, "Exactly as I said, House Intel chair, we cannot rule out senior Obama officials were involved in Trump surveillance."

More in all of it now from CNN Jeff Zeleny who joins us now. That's not exactly what he said. He actually said President Obama. But anyway, about these revelations, what can you tell us?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: All right, Anderson, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee shocked everyone by showing up here at the White House for a meeting directly with the president saying he had new information. Well, he didn't bother to explain what that was to the other members of the intelligence committee, Democrats particularly there. He didn't brief a few Republicans there.

[21:20:03] But he stood outside the west lobby of the west wing of the White House, shortly after he met with the president, and he said this.


REP. DEVIN NUNES, (R) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: This doesn't have anything to do with this. This is information. This is information that was brought to me that I thought the president needed to know about incidental collection, where the president himself and others in the Trump transition team were clearly put into intelligence reports that ended up at this White House and across a whole bunch of other agencies. And I thought it was important for the president to know this, that's why I briefed the speaker this morning and I came down here as soon as I could.


ZELENY: Now, it's important to point out, he is leading an investigation into an entirely separate branch of government here. So, you know, sure idea of him coming down to share information certainly raised a ton of eyebrows.

Yes, he was on the -- he was a supporter of the president. He worked on his campaign committee and transition committee, which isn't all that unusual, but the sheer fact that he showed up here certainly raises questions about his objectivity and now tonight has thrown the entire investigation up in the air potentially.

COOPER: And while the president, you know, earlier said he felt partially vindicated clearing that tweet tonight, it sounds like he's, you know, feeling even more vindicated. I mean, others are saying the timing and presentation of the information itself is suspect.

ZELENY: The timing is very interesting indeed. I mean, look what else is going on today. It seems like, you know, several hours have several different things have happened, of course, but the Democrats simply say that they were blindsided by this. This is simply, you know, was coming out of left field entirely. So the top Democrat on the Congressional -- on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, he had this to say after digesting all of this.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (R) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: And unfortunately, I think the actions of today throw a great doubt into the ability of both the chairman and the committee to conduct the investigation the way it ought to be conducted.


ZELENY: So the question is now what is coming after this. Now, Democrats, of course, will be calling for an in independent investigation. Republicans control the House, so that is not likely to happen. But there is a separate investigation happening all together here, and the Senate Intelligence Committee did not want to come anywhere near this it seem today. They are doing their own investigation.

The FBI is also investigating separately, so the fact that this looked like a lifeline for the White House may not be as long of one as they had hoped. All these investigations still under way tonight, despite all of this, Anderson.

COOPER: Jeff Zeleny, thanks very much.

Much more now with our panel. (Inaudible) incarnation CNN Political Analyst Kirsten Powers, Daily Beast Senior Columnist Matt Lewis, Christine Quinn is back with us as well as Hill Contributor and Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany.

Kirsten, I mean, what you -- I mean, there are so many to talk about today, but just on this, what do you make of it? Nunes going over the White House, what he actually has said and the president saying it's a partial vindication.

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, I think it's honestly the way he's handling it is a little shady. If he had this information that really was that important, then he should have shared it with the rest of the people on the committee, at a bear minimum with Congressman Schiff and I think there would have a lot more credibility had he done that.

I also think that if you look at what he's actually alleging here, you know, he's saying that this was all legal, that it was incidental. It's not really vindicating Donald Trump, because Donald Trump had actually accused the president of wiretapping.

COOPER: Right. And Nunes said several times that -- POWERS: Right.

COOPER: -- this does not -- that no way is there any evidence that President Obama --

POWERS: Yeah. And then the other thing that I think is concerning is the fact that Donald Trump had said on Tucker Carlson's show, some information's going to be coming out. And now this information --

COOPER: And Sean Spicer reiterated that yesterday.

POWERS: Yeah. And now this information is coming out. So, how did -- I mean, we don't know how Congressman Nunes got this information. So, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered here.

COOPER: Matt, is it --

MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: On my point, I think you've said. Great minds think alike. I think Kirsten is exactly right on that. Donald Trump said that Obama wiretapped him in Trump Tower. This was not -- it was incidental, which means they were not targeting Donald Trump or his administration or his transition team. But I think, look, this really calls into question. And the serious question, the objectivity, and the independence of this congressional investigation.

I mean, I think that if I were the chairman of this, you know, if I found out this information, my first move would be to go to the ranking member and say, "Hey, we've got this. Well, how do you think we should handle it? Should we hold a press conference? Should we alert the other committee members? Should we go to the White House and inform the president?" He didn't do any of that. He unilaterally did this. And whether or not there's anything fishy, it creates the appearance of impropriety.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But I think you're really missing the forest for the trees here. You know, my Democratic counterparts and my Republican counterparts are concerned at the process by which Devin Nunes relayed this information. None of us are talking about the substance of what he is saying. If it is true, and we have no reason to doubt Chairman Nunes, he's a credible person.

[21:25:06] If it is true that U.S. citizens were spied on --

LEWIS: No, he didn't say spied.



COOPER: Let her finish. Let her finish. OK, let her finish.

MCENANY: In this course of surveying foreign agents, they stumbled upon U.S. citizens who were talking about Donald Trump's family, who were talking about Donald Trump's plans for the administration. That was reported on CNN. So, they stumbled upon this conversation, at that point, go read DNI procedures. You stop what you're doing. You do not read any further, instead of stopping what they were doing, they unmasked the name of that person and disseminated this information about government.

Maybe you guys don't think that Fourth Amendment rights apply to people who have an R behind their name, but they certainly do and that is the substance of this. And the fact that the left isn't outrage over this, it's not only hypocritical, it's deeply disturbing to a Democratic side.

QUINN: What you just put out is -- are not actually the facts as we know them from the information.

MCENANY: They're according to CNN, the facts.

QUINN: No. What the Congress member said and on one of the earlier segments, a very high-ranking former CIA and FBI officer conveyed and clarified was that these were -- that this was allowed court-ordered looking into foreign agents, in the course of which, which happens all the time in different investigations. The person they're watching or listening to has a conversation or an interaction with somebody else. It happens constantly.

MCENANY: No, no, no.

QUINN: I let you finish. I let you finish. I didn't want to, but I did, so you have to now. So, then they identify these other people, and they identified them as American one, two, and three, as is the same way that happens with district attorney and U.S. attorney. And then at the easy procedure, they asked to unmask them. That is all fully allowed and is completely different than the president saying the former president illegally wiretapped him.

MCENANY: Christine, can you tell me what the legal qualification for unmasking is? It's committing a crime or having credible intelligence. What crime was committed the Donald Trump --

COOPER: Do we know enough about who was unmasked and what the nature of the conversation was to say whether or not the unmasking was appropriate or not?

MCENANY: According to Devin Nunes, it was not appropriate. He has no information indicating these individuals were committing a crime.

QUINN: But that doesn't mean they weren't --


COOPER: Does it raise any questions to you that Devin Nunes, who is chairman of this committee, which is supposed to be impartial and supposed to be actually investigating potentially people in the White House, would -- not only first make a public statement, but then go to the very people perhaps that are being investigated with information?

MCENANY: Well, they're being investigated for something different. The collusion with Russians is part of this investigation. What is also part of this investigation is the leaking of information, and what is also part of this information is now this, this spying of U.S. citizens, and I think Devin Nunes had a fair answer.

The Obama administration was aware of this. It is completely within President Trump's rights to know if he --


LEWISS: This is damaging. This is damaging if you're a Republican and you want to keep this from becoming a select committee or an independent prosecutor. What you need to do is preserve, hopefully not the illusion, but hopefully the actual integrity of this process. And I think that what Representative Nunes did, Chairman Nunes did today undermines that.

COOPER: Right. You now have John McCain saying, look, there's --


LEWISS: We need to believe it in separation of powers.

MCENANY: Matt, I'm confused though.

LEWISS: This makes it look like --

MCENANY: Why are you more concerned about the process than the substance of his claims? Are you concerned at all that --

LEWIS: I don't think that they were spying on Donald Trump. I think that --

MCENANY: So you think Devin Nunes lied?

LEWIS: I don't think -- I think that --

COOPER: He didn't say that they were spying on Donald Trump.

MCENANY: No, on U.S. citizens.

QUINN: But not Donald Trump.

MCENANY: It doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump. A U.S. citizen has Fourth Amendment rights.

QUINN: But you just said --

COOPER: Right, but he's not saying that they were spying on U.S. citizens.

QUINN: -- to believe the Congress member confirmed that. He did not confirm Donald Trump associates.

LEWIS: But, how do we know that --


LEWIS: We don't even know who his source is. How do we even --

MCENANY: Maybe this panel --

LEWIS: I'm just supposed to take his words.

MCENANY: Maybe this panel does not know about the Fourth Amendment.

QUINN: No, he was right --

COOPER: All right, but Devin Nunes --

LEWIS: I like all of (inaudible) the Second Amendment.

COOPER: It also -- I mean, just to so for a full picture, Devin Nunes was on the transition team for President Trump.

POWERS: Yeah. This just isn't how you handle it if you want to be seen on the up and up. It just isn't. It's so unusual. I mean, you're down there, Kayleigh so outraged about everything. You're not outraged over the fact that this is -- that he didn't -- he went to the White House before he even went to the other person on the committee with him that he's supposed to be doing investigations with and you just also keep saying that Americans were being spied on, and that's not what happened.

MCENANY: They were unmasked is violation of the law.

POWERS: It's something that's not spying.

COOPER: And by the way, there's only supposedly one unmasking. We don't know --


MCENANY: Multiple, Mike Flynn and others.

POWERS: And we don't know the circumstances around why they were unmasked. But at the end of the day, that's not spying. Spying would have been targeting them and they weren't targeted. It was -- they were --


[21:30:02] POWERS: Kayleigh, seriously, you really need to stop by telling us that we don't care about the laws. That's not -- that's just not --

MCENANY: But you're acting as if I have faux outrage that a private conversation about Trump's family --

POWERS: I didn't say it was faux outrage.


MCENANY: Does it concern you at all that a private conversation was widely disseminated around? I mean, does it concern you? POWERS: If it was done improperly, yes, if there was no reason to do it. But we don't know what happened. We don't know if what the circumstances of that we're. And I'm not saying that you have fake outrage. I think your outrage is legitimate. I'm just saying you don't have similar outrage over other things like, for example, the accusations against the Trump administration or Donald Trump and other people --

MCENANY: Because there's no evidence off. We actually have evidence here. We have credible evidence that Mike Flynn's identity was not only unmasked, it leaked to "The Washington Post," a private U.S. citizen's conversation --

COOPER: Are you find that -- I mean, are you as outraged about Russian hacking during the election and dissemination of e-mails and your candidate Donald Trump saying, "I love Wikileaks," and reading out all this information from these emails?

MCENANY: I said on this very panel and I said an attack on the United States doesn't matter, Democrat, Republican. An attack on the DNC is an attack on the RNC, it's an attack on America. I said that, but I'm very concerned that my Democratic counterparts don't seem to care about the constitution, don't seem to care about the Fourth Amendment, and they are the ones selectively outraged --


QUINN: With all due respect, no one here has trashed the Fourth Amendment.

MCENANY: But, you have.

QUINN: No, we have not, Kayleigh, A. And B --

LEWIS: It's a priceless way of arguing. I would say to Kayleigh to call into question the people on this panel. Our belief in the constitution --

MCENANY: Because we are so --

LEWIS: I mean, accused in a technical --

MCENANY: -- as the process of Devin Nunes, how -- because this is the argument of the panel. How dare Devin Nunes go to the White House before the Democrats, not how dare U.S. citizens were unmasked and our identities leaks to "The Washington Post" in the private consent of their conversation --

QUINN: My position right now that I'm most concerned about is that you are putting out misinformation.

MCENANY: It's not misinformation.

QUINN: American citizens, we have no evidence they were spying on. It was collateral intelligence happens all the time. COOPER: We have to take a break on this. Just ahead, former Trump campaign chair, Paul Manafort, is facing and knocking down new allegations about his ties to Russia. He says the newly report information is a smear and innuendo. We'll have the details ahead.


[21:36:18] COOPER: Tonight, former Trump campaign chair, Paul Manafort, is responding to new allegations about his consulting work for a client overseas. This time, the former client is a Russian oligarch. The FBI is investigating Mr. Manafort's possible ties to Russia, some of which involves his work for the (inaudible) pro- Russian president of Ukraine.

Tonight, press accusations and push back from the man in question. CNN Senior Investigative Journalist Drew Griffin has the latest.


DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The latest connection between a close Trump associate and Russia was dug up by the Associated Press reporting at 2005 memo in which Paul Manafort already working for a Russian billionaire named Oleg Deripaska, was pitching a plan to greatly benefit the Putin government.

Manafort confirmed to CNN he did work for Oleg Deripaska, but he reject the Associated Press interpretation that he was pushing the political interest of Vladimir Putin, including to "influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States."

"I have always publicly acknowledged that I worked for Mr. Deripaska and his company, Rusal, to advance its interest," Manafort told CNN through a spokesman. Adding, "I did not work for the Russian government." Once again, Manafort writes, "Smear and innuendo are being used to paint a false picture."

A spokesman for Deripaska told CNN, "Manafort provided investment consulting services, but declined to provide any additional details."

Manafort and his Russian billionaire had a major falling out. Court document showed Deripaska funneled nearly $19 million into a Manafort business venture registered in the Cayman Islands in 2007. They invested in a Ukrainian telecom company.

The deals went south and according to a legal filing, Deripaska's company said Manafort simply disappeared. White House Spokesman Sean Spicer this afternoon downplaying any connection this has to the president.

SEAN SPICER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He was a consultant. He had clients from around the world. There is no suggestion that he did anything improper or -- but to suggest that the president knew who his clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane. He was hired to do a job, he did it. That's it, plain and simple. GRIFFIN (voice-over): It's just the latest Russian headline headache for the Trump administration. CNN has reported the FBI is already investigating possible connections between Trump campaign officials, including Manafort and Russian officials.

Manafort was fired by the Trump campaign on August 19th. That was the same day the FBI announced Manafort was involved in another investigation and another possible connection to Russia. This time, it was his consulting work for the pro-Russian former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who eventually had to flee his own country seeking refuge in Russia with President Vladimir Putin.

The government of Ukraine opened an investigation into possible corruption and money laundering charges against Yanukovych and his political party after Manafort's name appeared on a ledger of $12.7 million in secret payments.

Manafort denies he ever took money illegally from anyone in his worldwide consulting business. He denies he pushed any Russian agenda while working in Ukraine. And he now denies that connection with a Russian billionaire had anything to do with a plan to enrich Russian President Vladimir Putin.


GRIFFIN: Anderson, Paul Manafort is not granting interviews right now, but he did tell us through a statement this afternoon that he looks forward to meeting with those conducting what he called a serious investigation into all of this so that he can explain the actual facts. Anderson?

[21:40:06] COOPER: Drew Griffin, thanks for the reporting. Up next, our breaking news in London and surveillance video of the attack that took four lives.


COOPER: More breaking news tonight. A terror investigation under way right now in London after at least four people were killed and 40 hurt. It started when the attacker drove into people on the Westminster Bridge. This is surveillance video. Hard to see, but the car in question is speeding from right to left in the spot we've highlighted. You see one of the victims's jumping into the River Thames. We're told that she was hospitalized.

Here's the aftermath on the bridge victims getting medical attention, waiting for ambulances. After crossing the bridge, the terrorist rammed his vehicle into the gates of Parliament, got out of their vehicle and stabbed the police officer before he was shot to death.

Our Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour is on the scene tonight. She joins as with the latest.

Christiane, you spoke to members of Parliament if they were able to finally leave today. What did they tell you about what they witnessed? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's incredible. You know, they were under lock and keys for hours and hours. And as we move broadcasting live suddenly everybody started filing out, hundreds of them started filing out.

[21:45:04] And we grabbed the few of them and talked to them and one member of Parliament told me that, you know, they were on the way to voting. They were moving underground. They have this underground connecting tunnels between parts of the building and M.P.s were on the way to voting when all of a sudden they saw other members coming at from a different parts of the building and telling them to "go back, go back." They had heard these shots ring out.

And so, they all went back. They went back to their offices. They sort of locked down, some of them who could get to their offices. Other was -- were forced to locked down until they were told that ,you know, it's under control, but you still have to stay in.

So, it was very scary for them. But, they pay tribute to the incredible professionalism of the police on the gate. If that police contingent hadn't been fully deployed and fully alert, this would have potentially been a lot worse. But the police are getting huge kudos here for their very, very quick and complete response to this incident.

COOPER: You also spoke to a former counterterrorism official. I'm wondering what they told you. I mean, you know, does this bear the hallmarks of an ISIS or ISIS-inspired attack, any idea on it?

AMANPOUR: Well, you know, the police have now said formally that while they believe they know who their attacker is, they're not releasing his name and they have not yet said his motive, except they have said they are treating it as an Islamist-inspired attack. So, that is what they are treating it as.

And, what we've been talking to counterterrorism officials about is the style of this. In a nutshell, it's a low-tech, high-impact terror attack, the likes of which we saw in Nice, in Berlin, which is a car, and in this case, and a knife, that causes enormous amount of damage and terror.

We've got, apparently, according to officials now, 40 injured. The death toll stands at this point at five. That means, including the policeman who was killed and the assailant who was skilled. But some injuries are catastrophic. But people are just thanking God, thanking response, thanking everything that it wasn't much worse than it actually turned out to be.

COOPER: And British Prime Minister Theresa May said that the fact that Parliament was chosen as a target that that was -- that's no accident.

AMANPOUR: It's no accident, Anderson. They chose the heart of Britain's democracy. This is called the mother of Parliament. It is the oldest Parliament building in the world and this is what they chose to attack. And, again, fortunately, the casualties are relatively low compared to what it could have been if you look at what happened in Nice.

The British prime minister said that this building -- this Parliament will reconvene tomorrow as scheduled as plan. It will continue its work. And she said, you know, in the face of these people who are often accused of wanting to "destroy our way of life", she said, "People tomorrow will get out of bed, will get out of their homes, will put on their suits and ties, tourists will come out. They'll walk these streets. They'll get on with their day. They'll get on with their lives. We will not be cowed." And that is very much the spirit here in London tonight as it has been throughout the terror threat.

COOPER: Yeah, carrying on. Christiane Amanpour, thanks so much.

Well, just ahead tonight on the eve of the House vote to repeal and replace Obamacare, Martin Savidge talks to some Trump supporters in Kentucky, what's at stake for them in our "America Uncovered" series, next.


[21:52:08] COOPER: As we've said, Republican leaders are scrambling tonight to nail down the votes in order to pass the GOP bill to replace and -- repeal and replace Obamacare. The House votes tomorrow. The states obviously high for President Trump who as you know has promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. Meaning, the supporters are counting on him to keep that promise including some who said that without the Medicaid coverage Obamacare has provided them with, they would die.

In tonight's "American Uncovered," Martin Savidge heads to Kentucky. Martin?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, in Washington when you talk about health care as downloadable (ph) numbers, policies and politics. It was really about people, the kind of people you find right here in Southeastern Kentucky.


SAVIDGE (voice-over): If you want to try to put a face on something as big that is complicated as health care, then this so where you come. Whitesburg, Kentucky, population about 2,100, a hard working town on hard times. It's also a home to some of the unhealthiest people in the country. Many of whom are treated here at the Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation, a medical clinic serving thousands annually.

DR. VAN BREEDING, FAMILY PRACTITIONER: We're talking about the sickest, the poorest, the patients who have the worst diseases in the whole United States. If we were a weather phenomenon, it would be declared a disaster area.

MICHAEL TAYLOR, COVERED UNDER AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: My lung (inaudible). I have bad (ph) lung, COPD.

JOHN CRAFT, COVERED UNDER AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: Last week I had congestive heart failure and kidney failure.

CHERYL ADAMS, COVERED UNDER AFORDABLE CARE ACT: Hypertension. I have cancer. Colon cancer is very high here. I'm a cancer survivor.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): The reason many say they are so sick is because they couldn't afford luxuries like doctor visits and preventive medicine. But that changed in 2013, when Kentucky's Medicaid program was expanded under the Affordable Care Act. 400,000 uninsured Kentuckians gained access to health care, thanks to Obamacare.

Did it make a difference?

ROBIN TAYLOR, COVERED UNDER AFORDABLE CARE ACT: Oh yeah, it made a big difference. He saved his life.

ADAMS: For me personally that, you know, the insurance was a major life saver because I would not have been able to afford the treatments.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Kentucky would seem to be an Obamacare success story and now all the Republican talk of repeal and replace has folks here scared.

ADAMS: I think a lot of people aren't sure what to think right now.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Which is understandable, except --

John, you voted for Donald Trump.

CRAFT: I did.

TAYLOR: Trump. We were behind Trump.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): This part of Kentucky gave Trump some of the strongest support in the state voting nearly 80 percent for the candidate who made no secret of the fact he wanted to repeal Obamacare.

What were you thinking?

CRAFT: I'm thinking he can turn us this thing around. We've been in major mess.

TAYLOR: He didn't say he was going to wipe out the insurance. He said he was going to a rebuild it. Well, I agree. He needs to be redone on certain things.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Many here believed for all the good it's done, Obamacare could be better.

[21:55:05] Lower premiums, primarily, and they believe Trump will make it better. Or that's what they hope.

CRAFT: It's exactly what I'm hoping is.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): You still -- CRAFT: That's why I vote for him.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): You still have that hope?

CRAFT: I do. I do.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Twenty-year-old Brook Flemming voted for Hillary Clinton and now is scared for her grandmother and many others in her town who she believes are wrong to count on President Trump.

BROOK FLEMMING, COVERED UNDER AFORDABLE CARE ACT: I don't know. It's just crazy that people who are the poorest, who need the most help are going to vote for somebody who I just feel like won't help us.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): In reality, many here aren't just hoping Republicans will keep them covered when it comes to health care. They are literally staking their life on it.

CRAFT: If it goes away, I don't know. I don't have, you know, backup plans.

TAYLOR: It's going to be like a silent death sentence on people like me, just a matter of time.


SAVIDGE: Medical experts here say among the other good things that the ACA has provided is that (inaudible) people invested in their medical futures. They go see the doctor before they got sick. Now with the changes they're proposing in Washington, they fear that people will go back to the old ways where they would see the doctor in an emergency room. Anderson?

COOPER: Martin Savidge, thanks very much. We'll be right back.


[22:00:03] COOPER: Thanks for watching "360." Time to hand things over to Don Lemon. "CNN Tonight" starts right now.