Return to Transcripts main page


Donald Trump Frustrated with Sessions for Recusal; Three Israeli Soldiers Killed in Settlement; Sean Spicer's Days as White House Press Secretary Are Over; Preview of a Brand New Season of CNN's "Declassified"; Florida Police Recommending Charges for Five Teenagers; O.J. Simpson Was Granted Parole; New Harvard University Study Might Be A Wake-Up Call. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired July 22, 2017 - 19:00   ET


[19:00:00] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Michael Weiss, congressional reporter for the "Washington Post" Karoun Demirjian and deputy managing editor for the "Weekly Standard" Kelly Jane Torrance.

Karoun, let's start with you. Your paper reporting essentially that Sessions lied when he said that he didn't talk about the Trump campaign with Russia. How do you expect Republican lawmakers now to respond? Could he hear calls for his resignation?

KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: I think you have a lot of Republican lawmakers who are very defensive of Jeff Sessions. Still they known him from serving with him for many years in Congress. Of course, because of the story broke last night, we are going to probably be hearing trickles from them on Sunday shows into next week as we talk to them more slowly about what the reactions are to this.

But I think what you will probably hear a lot of is defensive Sessions. People saying well how do we know that Russians tell the truth? We did something we address in the article also is that sometimes, you know, Russian officials will talk up conversations they have had to try to look into their superiors, but Kislyak did not have a track record of doing that. He was a pretty straight shooter when it came to these reports. He would send back to Moscow.

So it's going to put them in a tight spot to explain things. But right now, everything seems to be a tight spot around Jeff Sessions. You have that "New York Times" interview with Donald Trump where he seemed to be very frustrated with Sessions for having recused himself. You saw a lot of lawmakers come to Sessions' defense over the last few days about that. And Sessions is emerging as the central player again in this in terms of what happened, what did he discuss and when?

I think it is going to be a high bar for a lot of lawmakers who know him and worked with him to throw him under the bus, even if he now seems to be in a position where he may not have told the full truth of what was going on.

CABRERA: Michael, I saw you shaking your head or nodding your head yes when she was talking about the reputation of Kislyak in terms of telling the truth. But again, he is the man who has had a lot of experience in his position. What do you have expected his conversation with Moscow to perhaps be intercepted, being recorded?

MICHAEL WEISS, SENIOR EDITOR, THE DAILY BEAST: That's true. And it's possible that he planted disinformation for the purpose of trying to throw the NSA off. And therefore the U.S. government office to what the intentions of the Trump campaign had been. However, Kislyak is not a Russian spy. He didn't work for the SPR. Everybody I talk to in Moscow they says that this guy comes from a foreign affairs ministry background, right. His protege - he is rather protege, the famous soviet ambassador to the United States.

These guys play it more by the book. Part of the job is to gather intelligence and information and sort of read the tea leaves of the countries they are posted in. But it really would be surprising if he was, you know, kind of feeding nonsense and lies about what he had discussed with Jeff Sessions to Moscow. And indeed, the fact that this exchange took place and it has only been reported now indicates that there was more toing and froing than we had previously known about.

And also, look. If you look at the timeline, when did Vladimir Putin take the decision to really interfere with the U.S. election and political system by authorizing hackers to penetrate the DNC and the DCCC? If it can be shown that this decision was taken some time after information was conveyed by Trump campaign officials to Russian officials that look, we are guys on bilateral relations, right. We want reset 2.0. Forget about Hillary Clinton. She is a hawk. She is looking for war with Russia. World war III. We are the ones who are going to do businesses with you.

CABRERA: That's a theory. Those are allegations. Again, how far of the investigation is this?

WEISS: No, no, no. I'm saying if it can be shown as the timeline then it puts a lot more pressure on Jeff Sessions and by extension, the President.

CABRERA: Absolutely. But we really don't know at this point who is telling the truth.

And Kelly Jane, what we do know is this. When it comes to Russia, this administration has had a history of saying one thing and then later having to change their story or dispose more information when we learn more information that essentially forces their hand.

KELLY JANE TORRANCE, DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR, WEEKLY STANDARD: Yes, Ana. That's a problem. It's a rare moment when you don't know who to believe, you know, American administration officials or Russian officials. It's kind of shocking that we are not sure which one of them is telling the truth. And it is because the Trump administration and various officials have said one thing in a no contacts with Russians at all. And then, well, OK, some contacts with Russians. But Jeff Sessions said in my duties as a senator, not as a Trump campaign official. So we keep hearing new things or walking things back all the time and that's why we don't know who to believe here.

And you know, again, it's Jeff Sessions' own fault if this leads to his downfall. And honestly, I wonder if Donald Trump in a way might be happy about this. It sounds like he has been wanting to get rid of Jeff Sessions. And I wonder if he might now use this as an excuse to do something he is clearly been wanting to do ever since Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation.

CABRERA: And that is tweeting today, defense of Sessions, calling it all fake news once again.

Also important to note that Sessions through the department of justice and the statements that they issued said he stands by his past testimony back in June before the Senate.

Now Karoun, Congress, today, agreeing to pass the bill that not only placed new sanctions on Russia, but would make it so President Trump couldn't lift them without Congress signing up. What does that tell you about how much the President's own party trusts him or doesn't when it comes to Russia?

[19:05:08] DEMIRJIAN: Yes. We will be hard pressed to get the Republicans to actually say we don't trust Donald Trump when it comes to Russia. But actions do speak louder than words sometimes. And in this case, it is not just that they are passing - that they are codifying all the existing sanctions such are right now executive sanctions that Trump could take away and adding to those sanctions. And in addition, by adding related to Ukraine, Russia's activity in Syria and also the alleged meddling in the 2016 election.

But they are restraining the President to an extent. They are giving themselves 30 days to check the President every time he wants to amend the sanctions policy so that he can't actually water it down or pull it back without them having a chance to have a say so. And that say so to not be absolutely not weavy so you are able to do that.

That is unprecedented. That is not something that Congress usually does. It is Congress' right to take away the waiver authority that they give the President. But usually, they just kind of defer to the President's judgment knowing more about the foreign policy picture in the world, needing to have more diplomatic tools at their disposal. And they are not getting this president that right. They are not giving every President in perpetuity that right by passing this as the law. , it gets to that point, they can get to the floor. But it seems very likely that after all of these weeks of negotiation during which the President and his team were pushing hard to get them to take out this provision of congressional review and Congress clearly did not listen to that. They stuck to the basic structure of what is there to give themselves a chance to say, absolutely not.

That means that they want to be able to have that check power which means they are not 100 percent comfortable with letting the President go forward and for good reason. I mean, there have been many reports coming out that the President, even if he is saying, you know, I'm going to keep a hard line on Ukraine and Syria sanctions, that he is saying, you know, well, maybe we are open to talking about handing back those compounds that the Obama administration took away at the end of December. So that's kind of opening the door to pulling things back in a way that lawmakers are not that comfortable with. CABRERA: Michael, let me ask you about Robert Mueller's investigation

that is growing, this probe into Russia and possible collusion. Bloomberg reporting this week that special counsel Mueller is looking into finance of Trump's businesses. It says follow the money. This investigation why is partly perhaps in a money-laundering probe that was first launched by now former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara here in New York. Help me connect the do dots here. Of course, Trump fired Bharara. But why would money-laundering be part of this Russia probe?

WEISS: This all has to do with a company called Bayrock Consulting. And that the character name Felix Sater. Felix Sater interestingly enough is an informant or had been an informant for the FBI in the department of justice allegedly helping to round up (INAUDIBLE) and organized crime syndicates in the New York area.

But before that, he was a stockbroker who went to jail for slashing a guy in the face with a margarita glass. He goes into this company, Bayrock Consulting, claims to be very tight with Donald Trump. There is photos of the two of them together. At one point, had an office in Trump tower here in New York with a business card that said that he was some kind of associate or consultant for the Trump organization. And helped the Trump people develop Trump soho here in New York.

A guy who worked at Bayrock Consulting, Jody Chris, former financial director, has alleged that Felix Sater is a crook. And that Bayrock consulting was a front for money laundered from Russia and Kazakhstan. And indeed, the Kazak authorities and take this with the pinch of salt. This is one of the most notorious central Asian dictatorships have said that, you know, Felix Sater is now cooperating with an international investigation into money-laundering, New York. And the DOJ is taking this very seriously.

This is where Mueller is sort of probing. And keep in mind, this isn't the only money-laundering case to hit New York in a big way that came from Moscow. The lawyer we have all been talking about for three weeks, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was a defense attorney for Prevision Holdings Limited. This is again, according to DOJ and Preet Bharara, was a front for Russian money that had been laundered. And prior to that, stolen in 2007 in the biggest tax heist, tax fraud in Russian history.

$230 million stolen from the Russian taxpayer by a mafia group that consisted at the time of members of Russia's interior ministry, SFB or federal security services, tax bureaus, et cetera.

So we are beginning to get a picture here that if you really want to understand any element of possible collusion or conspiracy, it's really to do with corruption and dollars and cents more than any kind of geopolitical orientation.

CABRERA: So interesting. So glad you were able to give us all of that context to where we could see this investigation head.

Thank you, Michael Weiss and ladies, of course, going to be joining me on the back side of the break. So stick around. I want to get to some breaking news right now out of the West Bank.

More clashes tonight both there and in Jerusalem where tensions are rising quickly. Three Israelis soldiers were killed or I should say Israelis were killed on Friday. There was a stabbing attack in an Israeli settlement. The knife attack clashed that killed three Palestinians in Jerusalem's old city. Now, that violence was set off by new security measures the Israelis put in place around a sensitive holy site.

CNN correspondent Oren Liebermann is joining us from Jerusalem.

Oren, what is the situation and the mood there right now? And where is this headed?

[19:10:12] OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Certainly, tense at the moment would be a word to describe it. And those tensions have only risen up until this point. The question is what happens in the next few days? Some Palestinian factions have called for a day of rage tomorrow. Now often, that is largely a symbolic move and we don't see that rage actually translate on the street. But it is an indication of where the situation is. It is at a critical moment. And it could go at this point in either direction.

Meanwhile, the Israelis will have government meetings tomorrow including security cabinet meeting where they will discuss this issue of the metal detector that Israel put in place at the entrance to the holy site for Jews, the temple mount for Muslims, the noble sanctuary.

Israel put those in place and now has the choice or the decision if it wants to remove them. And depends if it does on what's put in place. Is it simply metal detecting wands which could ease the tension or is it something more intrusive or more serious which could do the exact opposite and move this more towards the direction everyone is afraid it's going in and that's towards more demonstrations and more violence here.

CABRERA: But it was metal detectors initially that were installed, if I'm understanding this right, that sparked some of the tension, no?

LIEBERMANN: Well, these metal detectors were put in place about a week ago after an attack on the temple Mt. Noble sanctuary where three Arab-Israelis killed two Israeli police officers. Those metal detectors were put in place as a security measure. But this is about so much more than simply metal detectors. Israel made that move unilaterally. It didn't consult with the Jordanians which have custodianship of this holy site. Didn't consult with anyone else really.

So putting those in place was seen as unilateral move, a move Israel did on its own. Palestinians and others in the Arab sector viewed that as a move by Israel to try to take control, full control of the holy site and that's why it is so sensitive. It's not just about metal detectors, it is about the holy site.

Meanwhile, another element of what would be the big focus tomorrow is the funerals for the three Israelis killed in the West Bank settlement of (INAUDIBLE) yesterday. We now have pictures of this family. This is an elderly father as well as his son and daughter. They will be laid to rest tomorrow. The funerals will be closed to the media but all of this gets at the tension of tomorrow and how critical the next few days are right now.

CABRERA: And just to give some more perspective to our viewers, this is bigger than just the Israelis and the Palestinians or the international community is trying to get involved here.

LIEBERMANN: Absolutely. The quartet which is the U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the EU have got involved here and said they are watching us very closely. And they hope that all sides take steps to do what they can to cut the tension. There will be a discussion it seems at this point at the Security Council tomorrow to see what they can help do to make sure that tensions move in the right direction which is to say that they ease or that they lessen.

But, Ana, I will repeat this again. It really is a critical moment right now. And the next few days will determine which direction this moves. It is starting to feel up here a bit like it did in roughly September 2015 where we saw a wave of violence break out across the region, across Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank. It's starting to feel like that and move towards that direction. That's what everyone is trying to head off right now.

CABRERA: Oren Liebermann, reporting from Jerusalem where it is now 2:13 in the morning. Thanks for staying up late for us. We appreciate the update from there.

Ahead this hour, spicy out, a White House staff shake-up has Sean Spicer walking away and Anthony Scaramucci walking in. What's the new White House communications director said in his first interview?

Plus, daggling a state, a U.S. supported airstrikes accidentally claims the lives of 16 Afghan police officers. What went wrong? Coming up.

And later, facing charges. One Florida police chief said he is ready to recommend charges against teenagers who taunted and laughed at a drowning man who died. Details coming up.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


[19:18:09] CABRERA: Sean Spicer's day as White House press secretary have come to an end. He announced his resignation yesterday during his sixth month at the podium. Though, no one can forget some of his moments. He had a rocky on-camera relationship with the media as well as the few eyebrow raising moments.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period, both in person and around the globe. When we use words like travel ban that misrepresents what it is.

I would said it from the day I got here until whatever that there is no connection. You have got Russia. If the President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow it's a Russian connection but every single person - no. Well, that's -- I appreciate your agenda here, but the reality is, no, hold on. No, at some point, report the facts.


SPICER: OK. But you are asking me a question and I'm going to answer it which is the President -- I'm sorry, please stop shaking your head again. We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II, you know. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sean, answer the question, please.




CABRERA: White House sources tell Spicer adamantly opposed the hiring of Anthony Scaramucci. He is the new White House communications director and so did Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, but Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner encouraged it.

Back with us Karoun Demirjian and Kelly Jane Torrance:

Karoun, President Trump had reportedly asked Spicer to stay on. The President even tweeted, Sean Spicer is a wonderful person who took tremendous abuse from the fake news media but his future is bright. What does Scaramucci bring that Spicer lacked?

DEMIRJIAN: Well, Scaramucci has a lot of experience on television. He has a certain sort suaveness when he speaks. He is, in his opening press conference where he - which he did this week, he was very complimentary of reporters where Sean Spicer has been very combative. Even though he gave answers that were not necessarily, you know, that fully and revealing any more information than Spicer did. His tone, his style is a little bit different. It is a little more New York. It is a little bit more polished than Sean Spicer even though Sean Spicer has far more experience in Washington, D.C. than Anthony Scaramucci. So it is definitely a shift.

But also, remember that we are going to keep seeing Sarah Huckabee Sanders at that podium. Scaramucci is coming into the communications director role. That's a strategist's role. It is a role where you have to be, you know, dealing with the President, other senior members of the administration and thinking about how to package the message going out. But you are not standing behind that podium every day. The person is going to be behind that podium is the person we have seeing for the last few weeks who is Sanders. So --. [19:20:53] CABRERA: But she hasn't even been on camera for most of

the last few weeks. Her last on-camera press briefing before yesterday was June 29th.

DEMIRJIAN: And that's an opening question that Scaramucci is going to have to deal with. Do they continue this policy of keeping everything off camera or they do shift on that because it's a new day with new guy in charge? Unclear where that is going to go but he have an announcement he sort of policy of going forward and Friday's press conference was a unique on-camera event as you just said.

But you also have a closer relationship personally just between the President and Scaramucci right now. So will that change things because, again, a lot of this has been every time something goes wrong, the President blames the communications side of things and said the communications failure and mistake and lot of that is falling on the feet of Sean Spicer. So does this turn the page because the President and Scaramucci just likes each other better than maybe the President and Spicer did? And Spicer is fairly loyal to the President but it didn't seem to matter in the end because he was blamed for a lot of things and pulled away from that podium.

CABRERA: OK. So let me ask you about Sean Spicer's response for why he resigned. Let's listen, Kelly Jane.


SPICER: The President obviously wanted to add to the team more than anything. I just think it was in the best interest of our communications department, of our press organization to not have too many cooks in the kitchen.


CABRERA: Do you think him walking away is as simple as that answer he just gave?

TORRANCE: No, I don't. But I will say though that Sean Spicer's classiest moment seems to be after he left the job as press secretary. He is very gracious on leaving and giving a, you know, a pretty good report of his work with the President and his being very nice to the guy who got the job that I think he was hoping to get. So this is definitely the class we seen Sean Spicer.

But no, the reports coming out of the White House that Sean Spicer went to the President when he heard that Scaramucci was going to be hired and said, listen, it's him or me. And the President refused to change his mind, so Spicer resigned.

So I think, you know, he is playing nice for the cameras. Maybe he is hoping, you know, future employers might see this and judge him kindly. But no. I think it is definitely, he is not happy about the new hire and he refused to work with him.

CABRERA: Ladies, let me read you how the far right is reacting to this change. This is from one far right writer who write quote "the base supports MOOCH because he doesn't view himself as being better than the base. Spicer and Reince are snobs. They use the base and they wanted to pretend like we didn't even exist. That is the establishment GOP mole. Use the base before returning to business as usual.

Karoun, do you agree? And then get your take, Kelly Jane, as well.

DEMIRJIAN: Well, I mean, there is a pushback from a lot of the base and from these more unorthodox wings of the GOP and fresher ones to push back against the traditionalists which is Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer represented that wing from the GOP.

But it is interesting, especially because today, there was a dust-up around Scaramucci's twitter feed because he said a lot of things that do not agree with the President, do not agree with the base in the past and he announced that he is going to erase all of those and quote-unquote "full transparency" because he has evolved, right?

So I think this is an example of this adage. You know, it doesn't matter what you say, it matters how you say it. And Scaramucci is a lot better at saying, his translation, his tone, his delivery than Spicer is even if, you know, the line that Spicer was delivering from that podium is not that different from the line that Scaramucci is going to be delivering from the podium even if it does not match with what Scaramucci was saying two years ago about many of these policies in terms of who agrees more with the President who seems to be more in line with the base.

CABRERA: Kelly Jane, your thoughts on that. But I also ask, do you think that the relationship between the White House and the press changes with Scaramucci?

TORRANCE: Well, I think it was very interesting that the first one on one interview Scaramucci gave after being named new communications director was to Breitbart. He went on the Breitbart news radio show and talked to them this morning. And in that, you know, listening to that interview and seeing what he said, I am skeptical that much is going to change because he seems to think the major problem for the White House is messaging and getting the message out.

But listen, President Trump has a direct unfiltered line to the American people through his twitter account. And even publications that the White House would consider hostile to them regularly report exactly what the President has been tweeting. So I sort of disagree with the idea that the problem is they are just not getting the right message out.

I think that Trump himself is his own worst enemy. Instead of focusing on, you know, his accomplishments or thing he would like to accomplish, he constantly tweets his grievances and focuses on the scandals that surround him. And I don't get the impression that Scaramucci is going to change that. He has talked about letting Trump be Trump.

[19:25:45] CABRERA: Be himself. Yes, that's right. That is one thing that he said yesterday. I will note he did take a question from one of our CNN reporters who

were there at the White House press briefing. And it has been a long, long time since they have taken a question from CNN. So that that was a notable difference between the two comes individuals, shall we say?

Karoun, we appreciate it. Kelly Jane, thanks for being here as well.

And a programming note, Anthony Scaramucci will be Jake Tapper's guest tomorrow on CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION." So stay tune for that. That's at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on CNN.

Coming up, spies among us. See how America's most covert missions are finally coming to light.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are more spies in the United States today than there were at the height of the cold war.


CABRERA: Former house intelligence chairman and CNN host Mike Rogers joins us next for a preview of a brand new season of CNN's "Declassified."

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


[19:30:51] CABRERA: Their mission was simple, blend in. Play the long game and get close to people with classified information. Tonight's season premiere of "Declassified" looks at the shadowy world of Russian agents living deep undercover right here in the U.S. Here's a preview.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The best cover for a spy is the ability to blend in and just be another citizen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An illegal, the agents who quietly blend into the societies of other nations and lead seemingly normal lives while secretly carrying out orders passed to them from Moscow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The term illegal is an intelligence term of art that refers to somebody who is here not with any kind of diplomatic status, that is here not here in true name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are career intelligence professionals. They are given advanced training and trade craft, clandestine activities and then they ultimately spend years serving abroad in order to become someone they are not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are teachers, travel agents, they are in real estate. They are going to rotary clubs. Your first reaction is this is just an ordinary job. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They can live unnoticed in the shadows with a

specific purpose. They spot and assess people with access to information. They start a relationship with them. They learn what kind of person they are, what their interests are, what their vulnerabilities are.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All to gain access to classified information, political, academic, financial, from friends, employers, coworkers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They could ultimately provide some very important intelligence to the Russians.


CABRERA: Joining me is the host of "Declassified" and former chairman of the House committee Mike Rogers.

Congressman, given the current climate, no one could possibly watch this episode and not think of where we are at today with the Russian meddling investigations, just how easy is it for spies to infiltrate the circles of the politically elite?

MIKE ROGERS, CNN HOST, DECLASSIFIED: Well, I think who is finding in the real life example that we are going to show you this weekend, and what you are finding in real life that's happened over the course of the campaign is pretty easy.

We are a very open society. The Russians have been doing this, by the way, for a very long time to the United States. Infiltrating people, changing their identities, allowing them to fit in to communities with the sole purpose of collecting information helpful to the Russian government.

And so it does had happens. You were seeing it unfold here in the 2016 campaign cycle and now, you get a chance to see what the real live it is called illegals case happened right here in the United States and exciting. It's like reading a book except you get to watch it right here on CNN.

CABRERA: The recent reporting from our reporters Shimon Prokupecz, Pam Brown, and then others here at CNN, there could be up to 150 Russian operatives right now inside the U.S. Does the U.S. simply allow these spies to operate to a certain degree because if they are known, you can keep an eye on who they associate with?

ROGERS: Yes. Every time you identify a spy, and by the way, doesn't mean we have identified all of them, and so - and here's an interesting point. There are more spies in the United States today than there were at the height of the cold war. It's really important to understand that because it starts to put things in context. And they will do it through a whole host of ways. They will have people that work at the embassy that are spies who the government tries to follow. The FBI's job is to try to figure out who they are and catch them doing something wrong and either get rid of them or put them in jail. The illegals case is a whole other matter. These are the people that

the FBI would not likely know about. They come in. They might be called John Smith or fill in the blank. They come, they get infiltrated into a community. Of course, that's not the real name and then they go out and try to find access to either government policy, government officials, defense contractors, all of those things to collect information, to steal secrets, if you will.

And so, we know who they are in some cases and those, we watch pretty closely. The trick there is, you know, sometimes the devil you know, you might want to try to figure out who are they meeting with? What kind of conversations are they having?

And this is why in the real life case, you are seeing not only this weekend but in the 2016 campaign, some of these conversations were recorded according to public reports. And so that you will have that flavor that that's the government trying to figure out, who are these Russians that we believe are tied to the intelligence services, who are they talking to, what are they talking about, what are they trying to accomplish?

[19:35:33] CABRERA: This is all so fascinating. And this the idea of a spy next door is a little alarming. What do you think is the biggest threat?

ROGERS: Well, you know, the biggest threat is exactly almost what you saw. So some unwitting person gets drawn into their lair. And so what happens is, in intelligence, these are very good. So they know that intelligence people, an FBI agent, let's say or a CIA officer is trained in intelligence. That's a very tricky animal to try to recruit and turn against the United States to give information to the Russians.

But sometimes people have access to information they don't even know is all that valuable to the Russians. They don't even think that it might be valuable. So they do things like dangle information or say, hey, come on out. Let me buy you dinner. Let's meet. Let's get to know each other. And oh, by the way, would you mind bringing a folder home from work for me? I'm working on a project for fill in the blank. Somebody brings it home. Bam, they have got you. Because now you have taken something you shouldn't have and showed it to somebody who now is identified as a spy. They will use that information against you along the way. You didn't think you were doing anything wrong. Now you are caught up into their scenario, their scheme and now you are a spy for the Russians.

That's the one thing that worries us most. And as a former FBI guy, I always worry the most that people unwittingly got snared up and got involved in Russian spies and they couldn't get out.

CABRERA: Mike Rogers. Congressman, thank you.

Be sure to catch the premiere of "Declassified: untold stories of American spies" tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [19:41:12] CABRERA: To Florida where police are recommending charges for five teenagers who videotaped a man drowning and stood there laughed and joking. They never intervened. They didn't call 9-1-1. The man died.

CNN's Nick Valencia has their story. And we want to warn you, it contains disturbing video - Nick.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ana, this week detectives with the Coco police department interviewed the teens. During questioning not only did they show no remorse, but police say at least one of them smirked when talking about the video. They say they were in the area smoking weed when they saw Dunn get into the pond. We have to warn you that the video that you are about to watch is disturbing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of the water. You are going to die.

VALENCIA (voice-over): A blatant disregard for human life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are not going to help your (bleep). Shouldn't have got in.

VALENCIA: A group of Florida teens taunt a drowning man while filming his final moments from afar.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't nobody going to help you.

VALENCIA: In the two minute long video clip the five boys between ages of 14 and 16 can be heard laughing as the man struggles to stay afloat in a pond in Coco, Florida. Rather than call for help, the teens recorded the incident on cell phone, chuckling while they watched the man die. They say this when the man goes under water and doesn't resurface.


VALENCIA: The state of Florida currently does not have a law where a citizen is obligated to render aid for anyone in distress or call for help. Both Coco police and the state attorney office say they are frustrated that no one can be held accountable in this incident.

We are deeply saddened and shocked at both the manner in which Mr. Dunn lost his life and the actions of the witnesses to this tragedy. We can find no moral justification for either the behavior of the persons heard On the Recording or the deliberate decision not to render aid to Mr. Dunn.

Police say the victim, 31-year-old Jamel Dunn got into an argument with his mom and possibly his fiancee the afternoon of July 9th. Ten minutes after the fight was over, police say Dunn scaled a fence surrounding a pond near his family's home and walked into the water. His family reported him missing three days later. The teens stayed quiet about what they saw so police didn't know where to look. Dunn's body wasn't discovered until five days after his death. SIMONE SCOTT, SISTER OF THE VICTIM: I feel like something should be


VALENCIA: The victim's sister posted the video of the drowning on Facebook and a Facebook live post, she questioned teens' humanity.

SCOTT: They sit there and watch somebody die in front of their eye. Well, imagine what they are going to do when they get older, you know. It is going to be a hot issue. Well, imagine how they are going to be where they get older. Where is the morals?


VALENCIA: Now, according to police, the teens waited a few days before they posted the video online. In fact, the sister of the victim first saw the video posted last Saturday on Facebook. She told me that she is disgusted and angry that nothing is being done.

We did reach out to the state's attorney's office. And though, they tell us there is currently no law on the books that requires a citizen to call if someone else is in distress, they are reviewing this specific case to see if any charges can be brought forward - Ana.

CABRERA: Awful story. Thank you, Nick Valencia.

Coming up, as America watched O.J. Simpson walk into the courtroom this week, many can't help but ask what happened to that white bronco, a history of the vehicle at the center of the car chase that captivated the nation.

Live in the newsroom. Stay with us.


[19:48:46] CABRERA: The juice is loose, two days after O.J. Simpson was granted parole, he is now on his own cell as prison officials in Nevada announced they have moved Simpson away from any inmates who might want to hurt or harass him in the months before he is set to be released.

But as America watch one of the most famous inmates in modern times walked into courtroom yet again, many couldn't help and wondered what happened to the infamous white broncos scene racing down in L.A. freeway in 1994?

Here is CNN's Christi Paul.


CHRISTI PAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Millions couldn't take their eyes off TV screens, intensely following the 1993 two-door white Ford bronco leading police in low speed car chase across southern Los Angeles. Nearly two hours and 60 miles later, the bronco stops at Simpson's Brentwood home where both men surrendered. We all know what happened after that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, in the above entitled action find

the defendant Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder.

PAUL: But what about that bronco? One element of fascination during the trial of the century, ESPN reports that at some point before the murder trial began, (INAUDIBLE) had agreed to sell the SUV for 75 grand to an L.A. tour company. But he probe the deal when he learned the company then called Grave Line Tour, would reenact the car chase, then take people to Nicole Simpson's grave.

A couple years later (INAUDIBLE) sold the broncos for $75,000 to Simpson's former agent, Mike Gilbert and two other people. For the next 17 years, the most famous truck in America sat parked in space 144 in a Los Angeles condo, not moving an inch according to ESPN.

In 2012, a man with the Luxor hotel in Las Vegas came looking for the bronco to put it on display turned bright lights of sin city. The bronco sat outside the Luxor hotel to promote the casino's brand new sports memorabilia exhibit.

While ESPN reports the deal soured because the bronco was supposed to be displayed inside, not under the harsh desert sun, Gilbert took the car back, stored it in a condo garage in central California where it was hidden from the public for several more years.

[19:51:08] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: its part of American history. They say it's the second most viewed vehicle in history behind the Kennedy car.

PAUL: "Inside Edition" spoke with Gilbert in 2016 and took the bronco out for a ride. It still runs. Gilbert says he only put 20 miles on it since the car chase in 1994.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) was sitting here. O.J. was right there. It brings back memories of a different time.

PAUL: In June of 2016, Gilbert and his associates agreed to loan the bronco to Alcatraz east Crime Museum in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. Since then, hundreds of thousands of tourists have been able to see for themselves the famed white board bronco.

And one something else, museum curators found these combs still in the glove compartment. They say they belong to (INAUDIBLE). And these items were in the bronco during the wild car chase in the summer of 1994.


CABRERA: Our thanks to Christi Paul.

Coming up, a wake-up call for your waistline. A new study making clear connections between fat and your long-term health.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [19:51:27] CABRERA: Welcome back. Turning to your health and your weight. For a lot of us as the years go by, the pound start piling up. Well, a new Harvard University study might be a wake-up call. It explains why fat matters and explores the different ways weight gain harms your health.

Let's talk it over with registered dietician Lisa Drayer.

So Lisa, break down the key findings for us.

LISA DRAYER, REGISTERED DIETICIAN: Right. This was a large study involving over 100,000 men and women. And basically it found that gaining even just a moderate amount of weight before the age of 55 was associated with increased risk of disease and premature death. So for every 11 pounds gained, we are not talking about a huge amount of weight, but for every 11 pounds gain, people experienced a five percent increased risk of dying prematurely, 30 percent increased risk for type II diabetes, 14 percent increased risk of high blood pressure, eight percent risk -- increased risk of heart disease and a six percent increased risk of obesity-related cancer.

So it's definitely cause for concern. And the key here is that this was cumulative weight gain over time. So we are not necessarily talking about someone who gains, you know, 20 or 30 pounds in a year, but maybe just one or two pounds per year. So it is really small and it may even go unnoticed but it adds up.

CABRERA: Which is alarming when you think about that because it almost seems like as we age weight gain is inevitable.

DRAYER: You know what? It really is. And that is because the forces work against us as we age. So basically what happens, especially for us women, we lose muscle mass. And muscle burns more calories than body fat. So when we lose muscle, we burn fewer calories and our metabolism slows down.

So even if we make no other changes, we are inclined to gain weight overtime. So a few thing become important to preserve muscle. For one, protein in the diet. Protein takes center stage because protein preserves muscle mass.

Also it's important to watch all of your calories. So we can't necessarily get away with a lot of indulgences. So on a Saturday night, a night like tonight, you may want to choose between wine or dessert, but not both. Make a choice. And also, exercise is really important. And I'm not even talking about formal exercise. If you don't love the gym or you know, a cycling class, even if you just move around a lot. You know, doing a yard works, cleaning the house, research shows that even these small physical activities add up and can increase metabolism substantially.

CABRERA: Just being active.

DRAYER: That's right.

CABRERA: I'm curious of this study because it was done over such a long duration of time.

DRAYER: Exactly.

CABRERA: When were the people in that study first weighed? And was there like a trigger for them in terms of this weight gain?

DRAYER: Right. Well, this was a huge cohort. So they -- researches actually asked people what did they weigh that is for when women were 18-year-olds and men 21 years old. So they were talking about, you know, when they really first entered adulthood, they weren't that old. But really, by the time they hit age 55, that's what when they noticed these health consequences with larger and large amount of weight gains. So the greater the weight gain during this period, the more, the higher risk of disease.

CABRERA: And I think one of the big takeaways that all being said is don't wait until you are 40 or later to start making a change when we start seeing the pounds pile up.

Thank you so much. Got to leave it there. Really nice to meet you. Thanks for coming on.

DRAYER: You too.

CABRERA: Straight ahead on CNN, join Kyra Phillips for never before her recordings of detective Mark Furman, a CNN special report, "AFTER O.J.: THE FURMAN TAPES REVEALED". That airs next.

That is going to do it for me in New York. I'm Ana Cabrera. So glad to have you with us. I will be back tomorrow night at 5:00 eastern right here on CNN.

Good night.