Return to Transcripts main page


Schiff: "Healthy Skepticism" of Flynn's Immunity Request; Trump: "If China is Not Going to Solve N. Korea, We Will"; Third Democrat Agrees to Vote "Yes" on Gorsuch; U.S., China Reverse Roles in Climate Change Policies; NYT: O'Reilly Thrives While Fox Settles Suits; Inside the War Room of Ashley Madison; Trump Reform Talk Propels Stocks in First Quarter; Critics: Trump's Winning Ways "Not So Winning.". Aired 6-7p ET

Aired April 2, 2017 - 18:00   ET


[18:00:01] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Find the leakers.

And let's not forget the Supreme Court. President Trump getting closer to perhaps a win with Judge Neil Gorsuch. A third Democrat now says he will vote yes on the president's nominee. A committee vote comes tomorrow with the full confirmation vote now just five days away.

We have our team of reporters and analysts ready to cover every angle. I want to begin with CNN's Ryan Nobles outside the White House where the cloud of Russia and the probe there continues to hang over this Trump presidency.

Ryan, we just heard this morning from the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee today.

RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. And Adam Schiff seems to be skeptical about the role that Michael Flynn could potentially play in this investigation into Russia's attempted meddling in the American election. Of course, Flynn this week saying that he would testify to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in exchange for immunity. And he had the support of the president's himself who tweeted that Michael Flynn should indeed seek immunity.

But Schiff said this morning that he thinks that that was a message that the president was sending in, that it ultimately wouldn't help the investigation all that much. Take a listen to what Schiff had to say.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The president's pretty transparent in the tweets. I think he wanted to get across a message that he's not afraid of what General Flynn has to say and daring the Congress to give him immunity, and then if we make a judgment that no, we shouldn't be giving him immunity, the president can say we don't want his story to come out. So, I think it was a strategic move by the president and a pretty transparent one.


NOBLES: That was Schiff this morning on CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION" with Jake Tapper. And what's interesting about that is that there's been this thought that Flynn could potentially be a central figure in this investigation into Russia's role in the American election, but Democrats in both the House and Senate side seem to be very skeptical that he could really provide anything tangible. That's why this point, both committees have said that they're not going to take him up on his offer of immunity -- Ana.

CABRERA: Thank you, Ryan Nobles.

Let's bring in Matt Rivers in Beijing.

And, Matt, China's president we know is coming to the U.S., will meet for the first time with President Trump. Today, President Trump in short said the U.S. will take on North Korea with or without China.

So, how is China reacting?

MATT RIVERS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, when Chinese officials wake up here in Beijing a little bit later on this morning, they're likely going to react in the exact same way that they have been very consistent when it comes to North Korea. What the Chinese argue is that the only way to solve the crisis on the Korean peninsula is through negotiations, is through returning to the negotiating table, be it through the model of the six-party talks that ultimately failed back in the mid-2000s or through direct negotiations between the United States and the DPRK, the regime in Pyongyang.

China has long argued that that is the only way that this problem will eventually be solved. Now, the Trump administration has said that it thinks that China should be doing more to solve this problem and it should be using its economic leverage over Pyongyang and that is the message that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson brought when he came here to China a few weeks ago.

But I think Chinese diplomats perhaps not going to be surprised by this interview given by Donald Trump in the "Financial Times". The Trump administration said it wants to take a harder stance, a harder line stance on North Korea and that it believes that China should be involved in that. So, I don't think that they're going to be surprised here, although this is not the preferred route the Chinese wants to take in terms of figuring out a solution to this ongoing problem, Ana.

CABRERA: How seriously does China take the president's words typically in terms of what we have seen so far?

RIVERS: Well, I think the Chinese are looking at this at face value the exact same way that we all are. They're looking at what he says and they're taking it at face value. But it's worth nothing that a lot of the things that Donald Trump has said, specifically as a candidate, he did not follow through or hasn't follow though on so far during his presidency. Don't forget during the campaign, he was going to label China a

currency manipulator on day one of his administration. That didn't happen. He threatened to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, he has not done that yet. He's held the longstanding diplomatic norms under the One China policy.

So, really, the Trump administration is differed from candidate Trump in a lot of ways. So, the Chinese have taken that as an optimistic sign that perhaps they can work with the Trump administration. So, they're going to take this at face value, but they're going into this meeting hoping for the best.

CABRERA: Let's talk about the Supreme Court nomination fight that lies ahead of the Senate this week.

Our reporter Ariane de Vogue has been following this closely.

Ariane, where are things now when you look at CNN's whip count for Judge Neil Gorsuch?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Well, Ana, tomorrow is a big day. The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet to vote. Gorsuch is expected to advance but we're also going to get more of a sense of where key Democrats are before the big votes later in the week.

And, Ana, it's all about the math right now. As things stand, it will take 60 votes to confirm him.

[18:05:02] As of Friday, 36 Democrats led by Senator Chuck Schumer suggested they'd filibuster.

Now, three Democrats said that they would support him. Those Democrats, they come from states where Trump won. They said, look, we are furious that Merrick Garland never got a vote and elections matter and Gorsuch is qualified.

Now, the Republicans say, look, if the Democrats choose to filibuster, then the Republicans will go ahead and change the rules of the Senate and make it easier for Supreme Court nominees to get through. And McConnell said it over the weekend and he had set a vote for this, Ana, for Friday.

CABRERA: Where does that end? You know, when you're changing the rules, that's the big question that a lot of people have been asking and why it matters so much what happens on this particular issue with the Supreme Court nominee.

Ryan Nobles, Matt Rivers, Ariane de Vogue, our thanks to all of you.

And let's talk about all of these developments with our CNN political commentators. Joining us Republican strategist and former Ted Cruz communications director Alice Stewart. And also with us, former manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Patti Solis Doyle.

Patti, what's your reaction to the tough talk we heard or read about with the president gearing up for this big meeting with China's leader?

PATTI SOLIS DOYLE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Uh-huh. Well, look, it definitely is tough talk and President Trump has a reputation for tough talk. But not really following through.

You know, when he took the call from the -- from Taiwan during the transition, he very much led China to believe that the One China policy was up for negotiation. Yet, when his son-in-law Jared Kushner sort of brokered the call between Trump and the president of China, he sort of backed down very easily. In fact, and then later, gave out a statement that was almost, you know, groveling of China.

I think what we have next week with the visit from the Chinese president is essentially we have the leader of the most powerful country in the world, meeting with the leader of the second most powerful country in the world, and Trump is coming into that meeting very much in a weakened state. You know, his two big initiatives have failed. The travel ban and health care. His administration is under FBI investigation and his favorability rating right now is at 37.

So, I think he may be overcompensating with tough talk to sort of cover up the weaknesses that he has right now.

CABRERA: Alice, is there risk in overplaying your hand with this tough talk?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: More than anything, the way I take that statement combined with what Nikki Haley said earlier today, it goes to show that the priority here leading up to these meetings with Chinese officials is that taking a stand on North Korea is critical, putting an end to the weapons program is paramount. Not just to the United States but certainly to China, as well.

And what the U.N. Ambassador Haley said today was, look, we need to influence and we need to push China to encourage North Korea to put a halt to their weapons program. No one has a more vested interest than China and we need to encourage them to do so. Following up with that, we have the president basically saying, look, if China is not going to help us in this process, I am not afraid to go it alone. I'm not afraid to take actions in my own hands.

We don't need that. We don't want that. We ideally do it together. But if China is not going to help, I think the president intends fully to follow through on his plan to do it alone.

CABRERA: And that's on top of what we heard a couple of weeks ago when Rex Tillerson was in that region and he said that basically all options are on the table including some kind of forceful option. So, we are hearing an escalation in terms of the verbiage used by this administration dealing with North Korea.

Let's talk a little bit about Russia. And the Russian investigation right now. Patti, here's what Congresswoman Maxine Waters told CNN earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: I know if we can prove collusion that he is impeachable. A lot of people don't want talk about that, but I do. I'm going to deal with this president and his incompetency and his inability to lead the nation, and that's going to be my story until I get him impeached.


CABRERA: Patti, are Democrats getting ahead of themselves there? We do not have proof of collusion right now.

SOLIS DOYLE: The key words there are "right now". There's an ongoing investigation with the FBI. They have not completed it.

But I think what is clear is that we need an independent investigation, rather than what the Intel Committee is doing, both on the House and Senate side. I think Representative Nunes' actions of last week that, you know, he went to the White House in the middle of the night to get intel from the White House that was given to him by a member of General Flynn's staff who had to resign because he lied to the vice president.

[18:10:10] And then, Representative Nunes comes out and has a press conference that kind of sort of, but not really backs the president's, you know, bogus claims that he was wiretapped.

CABRERA: It doesn't back the bogus claim that he was wiretapped.

SOLIS DOYLE: Well, I'm sorry. That he was surveilled.

CABRERA: FBI came out and said that there was no wiretapping and Nunes --


CABRERA: -- even said those documents did not say anything to that effect. They did not say President Obama wiretapped the president. Let's just make sure that that is clear.

SOLIS DOYLE: It is clear. But the purpose of the press conference was to try and sort of back up the fact that it wasn't a wiretap. We all know it wasn't a wiretap, but, you know, surveilled and surveillance covers so many different things including incidental surveillance.

I mean, all just very bogus but what's clear and many, you know, Republicans agree with me and Democrats that we need an independent investigation. There is no way that after Nunes' actions that he is proven that he can run a bipartisan investigation.


CABRERA: Go ahead, Alice.

STEWART: Ana, let me just follow up on Congresswoman Waters' statements of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Look, as Adam Schiff said this morning, there's no concrete evidence to date that shows that. That is part of the investigation. That's what we are looking at.

I think everyone on all facets of this issue are getting ahead of themselves and there's too much jumping to conclusions. I think we need to let the facts lead to the conclusion and let the facts play out as they may.

Look, surely there's a lot here that doesn't pass the smell test to Patti's point. The way Nunes handled receiving the information and disseminating it and not talking about it with the members of his Intel Committee first. That is cause for concern. And I do agree with Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham that it's time to bring in someone from the outside to investigate this to have a fair and impartial viewing of the information and investigation here.

But the bottom line is, the most important issue here is Russians interference and influence in our election. That's what we need to focus on. That's the most important and critical issue for all Americans.

CABRERA: Now, President Trump, along with sending out this tweet today saying we shouldn't be focusing on that, but rather we should be focusing on the leaks. He is also playing golf today. He was out on the golf course 14th time since taking office.

He had a special guest with him, Senator Rand Paul, and as you know, Paul has not been a huge fan of Trump. Afterward, Paul had this to say.


SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: We had a great day with the president today. We did talk about some health care reform. I think the sides are getting closer and closer together and I remain very optimistic that we will get Obamacare repealed.


CABRERA: Alice, could Paul end up being the hero on health care here?

STEWART: I don't care who the hero is. I want someone to bring the ball down the field coming to health care. And, look, this is a great step. It was clear right after the initial failure of AHCA that there's some frustration in the White House. But I'm very encouraged by the fact that they're working for a plan "B" and wanting to get it right.

They clearly need to work with folks like Rand Paul, but also with the moderates in the House, as well as the more conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus and I think this is a great step today to moving forward and moving the ball down the field. And I'm anxious to see what they plan to do with reaching out to all sides of not just the Republican Party, but the Democrats to make this thing happen because Americans voted for Republicans into office for lower premiums and greater access to health care and Republicans that I know plan to deliver on that.

CABRERA: Ladies, we've got to leave it there. Alice Stewart and Patti Solis Doyle, thank you.

STEWART: Thank you.

CABRERA: Coming up, President Trump makes his 14th visit against to a golf course. A Trump golf course. Does he no longer stand by this?


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And honestly, Obama ought to get off the golf course and get down there.


CABRERA: And later, FOX News anchor Bill O'Reilly and reports of secret settlements paid to women claiming harassment.


[18:18:19] CABRERA: Fourteen, that's how many times the president has gone golfing at a Trump property since taking office. His affinity for the sport inspiring the latest cover of "The Economist", depicting the president stuck in a sand trap under the headline the Trump presidency so far.

And it's not just golf courses. Every few days, the president has stopped by a Trump building, a Trump hotel or a Trump resort according to a breakdown by "The Washington Post". And all that activity behind closed doors with no real oversight has raised the hackles of government watchdogs. Democrats are now pushing for legislation demanding visitor logs at places like his Mar-a-Lago resort.

I want to bring in former Obama White House ethics czar and former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republican, Norman Eisen, and former Reagan political director, Jeffrey Lord.

Ambassador Eisen, before his recollection, Trump repeatedly slammed President Obama for his time on the golf course. And so, someone counted that President Trump has now played a round of golf for every five and a half days in office. We know a president playing golf is nothing new. So, I don't want to focus on that necessarily.

But is spending all this time at Trump properties an ethics concern?

NORMAN EISEN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Ana, thanks for having me. I have no objection to President Trump playing golf. I do object to the hypocrisy of him hitting President Obama on it and then outdoing President Obama many times over at this point in the administration.

You point to the correct issue, though. According to the calculations, President Trump has spent almost a third of his time at his own properties promoting those properties and exploiting the office for his personal gain. [18:20:03] We've never seen anything like it and it's part and parcel

of a much larger pattern of unethical, illegal and in the president's case unconstitutional behavior. So --

CABRERA: Hold your thought there.

EISEN: -- that's why it matters.

CABRERA: Hold your thought there, Norman, because I want to make sure to give Jeffrey a chance to respond to just that first part.

Because, Jeffrey, it doesn't seem like the president is trying to put distance between himself and the Trump Organization by spending all this time at these properties. Does it?

JEFFREY LORD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, presidents tend to do what they tend to do in terms of their own personal lives. President Reagan was criticized repeatedly for going to his ranch in California, taking the whole month of August off. On and on and on, you can go.

President Trump is unusual, because he's a billionaire, he was a private citizen who went straight from private life to the presidency. He owns all these properties. There's absolutely nothing wrong about this.

I do think that this is the beginning of a good conversation about the differences between private life and public life and how politicians used their public life and public service, say, a congressman who get elected to the Senate or the governorship, et cetera, and nobody blinks.

CABRERA: But the bottom line is he's spending all this time at a business that his family stands to benefit from.

LORD: Well, but --

CABRERA: Jeffrey?

LORD: But it was his business. Are we saying, he should stop going to his own place? I mean, that's --

EISEN: Yes, Jeffrey. Yes. He should because, number one, he's violating the Constitution. Constitution provides the president cannot receive foreign or domestic, cash or benefits, from foreign governments or domestic governments. He is raking in the cash. This is an infomercial for him to get unconstitutional foreign government cash benefits starting at his hotel.

Number two, number two, Jeffrey, it is part of a larger pattern and that's why ethics matter. There's a pattern of illegality and unconstitutionality in the administration that's worrying. The latest is the Jared and Ivanka mess where they've got a bunch of conflicts and a bunch of recusals and the Russia-gate investigation with Trump's own Russia cash unanswered for. His son says he collects a lot of it.

LORD: Norman, Norman -- EISEN: There's a lot of problems here, Jeffrey.

LORD: With all due respect --

CABRERA: Let's take a look at the Ivanka Trump issue, because now we know that he is becoming an unpaid senior adviser in the White House and, Ambassador, you tweeted this specifically, quote, "Jared's wife has trademarks from and business with China. Shouldn't he be recused? Well, at least she doesn't work in the White House. Oops."

So, you see murky waters here. Explain specifically what -- where those pitfalls are.

LORD: Let me get --

EISEN: Let me explain the pitfalls and then turn it over to you, Jeffrey.

Number one, the problem is that we have something we have -- it is not only that Trump is promoting his own properties, violating the Constitution, people violating around the law, he's brought in his family members into the White House. What happened to anti-nepotism protection? And those family members are his closest advisers. Like something out of tin pot country princelings --

LORD: Oh, that's ridiculous.

EISEN: -- behind the throne.

And here's why it matters. Jared and Ivanka have just as many conflicts with all their business dealings around the country and around the world, including in China, as their father or father-in-law respectively does.

So, as a legal matter, they shouldn't be working on those things. Do we have confidence that the White House is going to keep them from doing it?

LORD: Ana --

EISEN: I don't.

CABRERA: Go ahead, Jeffrey.

LORD: First of all, at least by my count, 10 presidents of the United States, beginning with John Adams have brought in family members to help run their White House. People with names like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Van Buren, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy's brother in the cabinet, at the same time, I might add, that the Kennedy family had extensive business interests all over the world.

There wasn't a peep from these folks at that point. Not a peep.

Hillary Clinton is famous, of course, because she was Bill Clinton's wife and was put in charge of health care. There wasn't a peep of dissent from Democrats. They all thought it was great.

In other words, this is just a lot of politics. It's a lot of double standards and really all it is.

EISEN: Jeffrey --

CABRERA: Norm, is this a double standard?

EISEN: No! Jeffrey, Martin Van Buren? Anti-nepotism law was put on the books in the 1960s. So, of course --

LORD: By Lyndon Johnson who get revenge on Bobby Kennedy. I mean, that's --

EISEN: Wait a minute. It is known as the Bobby Kennedy law and when I worked in the White House and my Republican predecessors, we were bound by that law and we had to send family members away. I don't think it's proper to have Jared and Ivanka there.

[18:25:02] Whatever the law says, there's arguments of the law. It makes no sense from a policy perspective.

LORD: I --

EISEN: When we are -- please let me finish, Jeffrey. When we are in a crisis, we want to know that the official advisers will have their first loyalty to the United States, not to the man who happens to sit in the Oval Office who's their father or father-in-law. It's very dangerous for the country. It doesn't look right.

And all of them are keeping their businesses and all of them are exploiting the office. I can't believe what's happening.

LORD: Norman, when you get to --

CABRERA: Gentlemen, we need to leave it there, gentlemen.

LORD: All right.

CABRERA: Finish your sentence, Jeffrey. And then we'll run.

LORD: Critical of politicians for doing the same things with using public life for their -- feather the political nest and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

CABRERA: All right. Jeffrey Lord, Norman Eisen, thank you both for joining us.

EISEN: Thanks, Ana. Thanks, Jeffrey.

CABRERA: Still ahead here tonight, are the leaders of the world's two biggest polluters switching sides? A look at how President Trump stands on climate change could be a gift to the Chinese.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


[18:30:14] CABRERA: A drastic role reversal for the U.S. and China when it comes to climate change. President Trump rolled back regulations aimed at protecting the environment last week as China's President was touting the virtues of environmental protection. CNN Correspondent Will Ripley reports this would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.


WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two dramatically different photo-ops just hours apart -- Chinese President Xi Jin Ping planting trees in Beijing, talking about protecting nature, President Trump signing an executive order in Washington dismantling President Obama's climate change policies. The leaders of the world's two biggest polluters switching sides, China ready to take the lead on going green.

LI YING, BEIJING RESIDENT (through translator): I'm a bit shocked. But that's OK. Our national leaders are paying much more attention than before.

ZHANG DAGUO, INSURANCE SALESMAN (through translator): I don't feel like President Xi has done very much. We're not seeing the results.

RIPLEY (on camera): It is true. There are still many smoggy days in Chinese cities like Beijing but as the U.S. seems to be reversing course on climate change, China is changing its approach. Even the hardline state newspaper, "Global Times," is calling out Trump and urging Americans to stop his climate policies.

RIPLEY (voice-over): For years, the Chinese government misled the public on pollution and suppressed environmental activists.

MA JUN, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: Some of the factories are not in compliance with --

RIPLEY (voice-over): Now, they're working together, creating this an app showing real time pollution data, pressuring violators to clean up their act.

JUN: Now, finally there's a real political will to try to control the pollution.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Times have definitely changed. As the U.S. rolls back environmental regulations, China's investing hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy, like this wind turbine factory and a Chinese tech firm buying into U.S. electric carmaker Tesla.

Many Chinese are fed up with toxic smog, a deadly by-product of decades of economic growth, believed to kill more than 2 million people in China each year.

AARON CHENG, REAL ESTATE EMPLOYEE (through translator): Other countries have experienced pollution, so we have examples of how to deal with it. RIPLEY (voice-over): The world's biggest polluter hopes to put bad

air in the past as the second biggest now faces an uncertain environmental future.


CABRERA: Will Ripley reporting. Now this all comes as President Trump prepares to meet with China's President in Mar-a-Lago this week.

I want to bring in someone who knows quite a bit about climate change. Andrew Steer is president and CEO of World Resources Institute, a global research institution that was actually involved with the Paris Climate Agreement.

So, thank you, sir, for joining us. Does the U.S. risk relinquishing its role as a global leader on climate change policy, and do you see danger in that?

ANDREW STEER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: Yes, it does, and, yes, I do. The United States has been a remarkable leader over the last eight years together with China, actually. We have a historic deal. We wouldn't have had it without that.

And without American leadership, we will be in a much worse state than we were, and the United States also will suffer. And, of course, China sees very much this as part of its own economic interest. I mean, one of the reasons why they're investing more than twice what we're investing in renewable energy is because that way, they're able to drive down costs. They now have a major export advantage.

So too in electric cars. They've now overtaken us in electric cars. Last year in China, 200,000 electric cars were registered. They're investing massively, and they, of course, will gain the competitive advantage.

CABRERA: But here is how the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt responded when he was asked about this specifically this Fox News today. Let's listen.


SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: Chris, the point is that President Xi is more committed to Paris than the United States is. But is he more committed in action and deed? And the answer is no.

We've demonstrated through the steps we've taken already at pre-1994 levels because that technology, we can burn coal in a clean fashion. We shouldn't have this commitment by the U.S. government to say that fossil fuels are bad, renewables are good.

The U.S. EPA and the U.S. government should not pick winners and losers, Chris. And that's what happened in the last several years. And we've demonstrated --


CABRERA: How do you respond?

STEER: Well, Mr. Pruitt is right to say the American government and the American people and American private sector have been real leaders, and there's a lot to be proud of, but I'm afraid he's totally wrong when it comes to the role of China.

China's coal use has already peaked. It's been declining for the last three years. On the same week that President Trump announced that he was going to abolish legislation, China announced that 150 coal plants that were planned would not go ahead. And they announced that there'd be $360 billion invested in the next three years on renewable energy. That would generate --

[18:35:17] CABRERA: But Pruitt says it's not fair to pick winners and losers.

STEER: Well, it's not a matter of picking winners and losers. It's a recognition that economists have had since the 1920s, that if we are polluting and other people suffer, one ought to put some kind of constraints on that in the form of a carbon tax. And that's why this year, China is introducing a nationwide carbon trade system. They've been experimenting over the last three years.

So it's nothing to do with picking winners and losers. It's to do with the fact that we want to move from today's highly polluting economy to tomorrow's greener and productive economy. And, of course, the Chinese have figured out that implementing their Paris deal will generate 69 million jobs by 2030.

And we talk about coal, which is important, there are 65,000 people working in coal today in the United States. There are a million people working in renewable energy, and there are 2.7 million in the United States working on renewable energy and energy efficiency. So there's really no comparison if you want to talk about economic progress.

CABRERA: Yes. Thank you for coming on and making the case for us. Andrew Steer, thank you.

STEER: Thank you.

CABRERA: Coming up, secret settlements and allegations of harassment. The new report putting Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly at the center of controversy.


[18:40:46] CABRERA: This latest headline blasted the front page of "The New York Times" this weekend, "Bill O'Reilly Thrives at Fox News Even as Harassment Settlements Add Up." This new report offers new accusations of sexual harassment against the Fox News star. Let's bring in CNN Senior Media Correspondent Brian Stelter joining me now.

Brian, this issue of sexual harassment seems to be a cloud hanging over Fox News for some time now. What are the latest allegations?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And this story gets to the issue of culture within, in this case, a newsroom. But at corporate culture, questions that would apply to any big company, in this case, a big media company. Of course, the conservative cable news channel, well known for stars like Bill O'Reilly. People tune in by the millions for O'Reilly's take on the news.

But O'Reilly has quietly settled a number of cases over the years of women who accused him mostly of sexual harassment, in one case, verbal harassment of a nonsexual nature. "The New York Times" started to look into this late last summer. That was when the head of the network, Roger Ailes, had to step down. He had been sued for sexual harassment by ex-anchor Gretchen Carlson. Other women came forward saying Ailes had also put them in situations or trying to sleep with them and trying to take advantage of them.

So Ailes leaves last summer and then "The New York Times" starts looking at O'Reilly. O'Reilly, back in 2004, had settled a lawsuit very publicly, a $9 million settlement with the ex-producer, but these other settlements were private. I think we can put on screen the examples "The Times" found.

These are examples from 2002, all the way until 2016, just last year in the wake of the Ailes matter. You can see five women that received payments from O'Reilly totaling $13 million. Some of those, smaller sums; some of those bigger sums. There are also two other women, "The Times" describes, who have not received settlements but who have accused O'Reilly of improper behavior.

CABRERA: So how is O'Reilly and Fox News responding?

STELTER: I would say Fox is standing not right next to O'Reilly but standing near him, saying that he says there's no merit to these allegations, saying he supports the company's efforts to create a safe, friendly work environment for all employees, female and male.

You know, this is a network that has had to rethink its human resources, had rethink the way it does business in the wake of the Ailes scandal.


STELTER: For example, they say they now have sensitivity training, sexual harassment training, new people in charge of those departments, things like that. But this O'Reilly issue goes to the heart of the matter because he's the biggest star on the network.

CABRERA: Exactly.

STELTER: And if now, still, there are women coming forward, saying they experienced harassment and yet he's still the host of the biggest show on the channel, it makes you wonder if the network is going ahead and accepting the fact that it can make lots of money from him and looking the other way when it comes to these allegations.

CABRERA: Brian Stelter, thanks for sharing some of that new insight with us. We appreciate it.

STELTER: Thanks.

CABRERA: Coming up, swipe, click, cheat? CNN's Laurie Segall takes us inside the war room of Ashley Madison and reveals the secrets that made countless users more likely to search for an affair.


[18:47:50] CABRERA: It was one of the most scandalous data breaches ever, the massive hack back in 2015 that exposed the dirty laundry of millions of Ashley Madison users, the online dating site set up for people who are already married. The hack left families destroyed, even driving some of the site's users to commit suicide. In an all- new episode of CNN's digital series, "MOSTLY HUMAN," Laurie Segall takes us inside the war room responsible for it.

Laurie, what did you find?

LAURIE SEGALL, CNN SENIOR TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Ana. Well, one of the reasons I wanted to look at the Ashley Madison hack as part of this investigation was, it was almost the modern-day "Scarlet Letter" when this hack happened. So many folks wanted to know who was on this list.

And one of the things I learned was Ashley Madison, the company itself, was actually looking into human behavior and looking into bad behavior, understanding that, as human beings, we're not all bad and not good, we're all somewhere in between. And what they were able to do, according to Professor Cerf who talked me through this, was target us in our weakest moments, using technology to try to get us to cheat. Take a look.


DR. MORAN CERF, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY KELLOGG SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT: There are very few people in the world who just walk around and say, I'm a liar, I'm a cheater, I'm a bad person. We all find a way to kind of convolute the world and tell ourselves a story that makes us seem honest.

SEGALL (voice-over): If people rationalize their behavior, it becomes easier to cheat. Ashley Madison marketed to this. They're slogans made cheating seem normal, like lots of people were doing this.

Moran says it's easy for companies like Ashley Madison to prey on us because data shows when we're at our weakest.

CERF: There's moments of the day where you're more likely to cheat then ones that you're less. So all the studies that we do show that, show that people are more likely to do something bad when they're stressed, when it's close to the end of the day.

SEGALL (voice-over): For example, Moran says if Ashley Madison knew you were on a business trip, you might be more likely to cheat. Therefore, if you're browsing from a different ZIP Code, chances are you might see an ad.

CERF: All the things that we know about you can be used by Google and Facebook to target you in different situations. They focus on making you buy more Coca-Cola than the Cap'n Crunch, but the same knowledge can be used for anything.

[18:50:08] SEGALL (voice-over): When Ashley Madison was hacked, we learned it wasn't just the users who had secrets; it was the company too. Many of the women on the site were actually bots, computerized programs. That means many customers were paying to chat with robots, not real women. And other secrets -- those users who paid to have their data deleted were surprised to find out it wasn't actually erased.

Over a year later, Ashley Madison still exists. But its parent company, Avid Life Media, rebranded itself. It's called "Ruby."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Avid Life Media is changing. As of July 12, 2016, our company's new name is Ruby.

SEGALL (voice-over): And I had a lot of questions. But a funny thing started happening when I tried reaching out to former employees.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just leave a message and we'll get right back to you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You reached the voice mailbox of --

SEGALL (on camera): Hey, there. My name is Laurie Segall. I'm a correspondent at CNN.

Laurie Segall calling again from CNN.

Laurie Segall from CNN. How are you? Were you associated with Ashley Madison in any way in management?

SEGALL (voice-over): And then came the threats.

SEGALL (on camera): This source was a person that was a former Ashley Madison employee. He said, "Just so you know, there's been talk about to the board of directors' claim that if we speak to the media still, that we will be sued. It's making me a little nervous."

This is a company that had all their dirty laundry aired for all of us to see. We already know so much, so what else do they have to hide? What are they so afraid, some of their former employees will say?


SEGALL: On a year and a half post hack, what's fascinating to me is not only is Ashley Madison still around, but they told me that they have millions more users even post hack, even though people were worried that they would be exposed for some of their bad behavior, Ana.

CABRERA: All very interesting. Laurie Segall, thank you. Be sure to catch the full series of "MOSTLY HUMAN" streaming right now exclusively on CNNGo.

Coming up here in the NEWSROOM, Jeanne Moos finds Donald Trump, a little desk, and a little winning.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning. You may get bored with winning. You're going to get so sick and tired of winning.



[18:56:36] CABRERA: It's been a wild and very profitable first quarter for Wall Street, but we've seen some dips in recent days. Is it about to end in a whimper? CNN Chief Business Correspondent Christine Romans breaks down what you need to know "Before the Bell."

Hi, Christine.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana. A stellar first quarter for the stock market. Big gains for all three major averages led by the Nasdaq. Look at that, up almost 10 percent.

It was buoyed by the prospects of tax reform, deregulation, and infrastructure spending. Those hopes got a reality check with the failure of the health care bill, but it seems, for now, investors remain pretty optimistic.

The big story coming up this week, jobs, jobs, jobs. The government's monthly reading on the labor market is due on Friday. In February, the economy gained 235,000 new jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 pages. Wages rose slightly.

That was a great first month for the Trump administration, but, remember, Ana, President Trump has promised 25 million jobs over the next 10 years. That averages about 208,000 new jobs per month.

We have seen consumer confidence rising. The housing market is still hot. But jobs is one of President Trump's main campaign issues, and Wall Street will get a fresh look at how he's doing on that at the end of this week, Ana.

CABRERA: All right. We await anxiously. Thank you, Christine.

Since the health care fiasco, "Tired of winning yet?" has become the winningest insult Trump critics can hurl. Here is Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When critics made fun of President Trump losing, their favorite ammunition is his boasting about winning.

TRUMP: We're going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning. You may get bored with winning. You are going to get so sick and tired of winning.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: So America, are you tired of winning yet? So much winning, winning!

MOOS (voice-over): Even this Republican strategist couldn't resist.

EVAN SIEGFRIED, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Aside from being sick and tired of all this failing --

MOOS (voice-over): Tweeted one critic, "So when exactly does the winning start?" followed by a Trump's setbacks. The parody account for Donald J. Rump tweeted, "I'm really getting sick of winning. It is overrated." All comedian Bill Maher had to do is play the video --

TRUMP: It's too much winning. We can't take it anymore.

MOOS (voice-over): -- and shake his head.

MOOS (on camera): You know, there is one other guy who made winning his catch phrase, though it ended up catching up with him.

CHARLIE SHEEN, ACTOR: Wow. Winning. Winning. Starting to get the concept now?

Oops, winning.

Duh, winning.

MOOS (voice-over): But, duh, you know what also isn't winning? Giving the White House briefing with something stuck in your teeth.

"Sean Spicer's teeth are sanctuary city for spinach," snarked one viewer. Tweeted another, "It's appropriate that @PressSec has lettuce in his teeth since he speaks in word salads." And no one even bothered to pass a note or speak up as they did --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your pin's upside down.

MOOS (voice-over): -- when Spicer wore his flag pin upside down. Also not winning, the little portable desk --

TRUMP: It's the smallest desk I've ever seen.


MOOS (voice-over): -- the President had to use to sign bills in the Roosevelt Room. Not quite as small as the one presidential impersonator Alec Baldwin was relegated to on SNL. To this President, size matters and winning is how he sizes himself up.

TRUMP: Please, Mr. President, we don't want to win any more.

MOOS (voice-over): Jeanne Moos, CNN.

TRUMP: You're driving us crazy!

[19:00:00] MOOS (voice-over): New York.

CABRERA: Hello to you. Top of the hour, you're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks for being with me on a Sunday. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.