Return to Transcripts main page


Incoming White House Comms Director Says President Still Does Not Believe Russia Meddling; Eight People Found Dead in Sweltering Heat in San Antonio; Can a President Be Indicted While in Office?; Trump Says He Has Complete Power to Pardon; Princes William and Harry Open Up About Their Mother; Stocks Continue Stunning Winning Streak; Two Decades Since O.J. Simpson Case Divided the Nation. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 23, 2017 - 18:00   ET


[18:00:00] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: -- evening here in New York. 3:00 in the afternoon out West. I'm Ana Cabrera. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. So glad you could joins us.

We begin with a surprising revelations from the incoming White House communications director. In an interview with CNN today, Anthony Scaramucci says that during a private phone call with President Trump this weekend, the president revealed he is still not sure Russia meddled in last year's election.

Now that denial from the president comes despite U.S. intelligence unanimously agreeing that Russia and Russia alone interfered. Scaramucci also says he doesn't know whether Trump will sign a new sanctions bill against Moscow. It would not only hit Russia with new penalties for election meddling, it would also prevent President Trump from lifting them without congressional approval.

Here is a portion of Jake Tapper's lengthy and wide-ranging interview with Anthony Scaramucci.


ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, INCOMING WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Somebody said to me yesterday -- I won't tell you who -- that if the Russians actually hacked this situation and spilled out those e-mails, you would have never seen it. You would have never had any evidence of them, meaning that they're super confident in their deception skills and hacking.

My point is, all of the information isn't on the table yet. But here's what I know about the president.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Well, wait, wait, wait. Anthony, Anthony, Anthony --

SCARAMUCCI: Let me finish. Let me finish. All right, go ahead.

TAPPER: You're making a lot of assertions here. I don't know who this anonymous person is that said that if the Russians had actually done it, we wouldn't have been able to detect it, but it is the unanimous --

SCARAMUCCI: How about -- how about it was the president, Jake?

TAPPER: OK. It's the consensus of the intelligence community.

SCARAMUCCI: I talked to him yesterday. He called me -- he called me from Air Force One.


SCARAMUCCI: And he basically said to me, hey, you know, this is -- maybe they did it. Maybe they didn't do it. And I'm going to maintain for you --


SCARAMUCCI: Hold on a second.

TAPPER: But this is exactly the issue here. We have experts, the U.S. intelligence agencies, unanimous, both Obama appointees and Trump appointees, the director of National Intelligence, the head of the National Security Agency, the head of the FBI. I mean, all of these intelligence experts saying Russia hacked the -- Russia hacked the election, they tried to interfere in the election. No votes were changed, but there was this disinformation and misinformation campaign. President Trump is contradicting it and you're siding with President Trump.

SCARAMUCCI: Well, I didn't say that I was siding with President Trump.

TAPPER: But this is -- this is exactly the point, because here you have a bill, legislation that was passed 98-2 in the U.S. Senate. The House is about to pass it. It will probably also be an overwhelming vote to sanction Russia. And President Trump told you that he still doesn't believe that Russia was trying to interfere in the election, even though the overwhelming body of the U.S. Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, and his own intelligence experts are telling him the opposite.

You're saying you're going to side with the president. Don't you owe a duty to the truth?

SCARAMUCCI: What about the conversation are you missing, Jake? There are checks and balances in the system for a reason. OK? The president will make that decision when he makes a decision. You're telling me that something is true that, in fact, could in fact be true. I don't have the information in front of me. Once I have cleared my security clearances and I have looked at the stuff, if I think it's true, behind closed doors, I will turn to the president very directly and say, sir, I think this stuff is true. But I don't have it in front of me right now.

TAPPER: My question right now is about the fact that a geopolitical foe of the United States, Russia, interfered in the U.S. election, according to every intelligence experts, both under the Obama administration and under the Trump administration.


TAPPER: The one person in the government who says it's not true is President Trump.

SCARAMUCCI: Well, I have got -- I have got -- again, one of the reasons why he is upset about it is that this sort -- this sort -- that the mainstream media position on this, that they interfered in the election, it actually, in his mind, what are you guys suggesting? Are you going to delegitimize his victory?


SCARAMUCCI: Is that going to make his victory illegitimate? Is that the point of it?


SCARAMUCCI: Well, you know what? He legitimately won the presidency.

TAPPER: Yes, absolutely.

SCARAMUCCI: Right? Do we both agree on that?

TAPPER: He legitimately won the presidency, absolutely.

SCARAMUCCI: OK? And that -- OK. So at the end of the day, let him make the decision. And as I said to you, once I've got a security clearance and I meet with those people myself, if I think it's true, I'm going to turn to the president very honestly, we have a great relationship, and say, sir, I think this is true.


CABRERA: The president has tweeted since this interview. He writes, "As the phony Russian witch hunt continues two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold, Democrats and Russians."

Joining me to discuss this and more, CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger, Washington bureau chief for the "Chicago Sun Times" Lynn Sweet, and writer of the "Right Turn" blog for the "Washington Post" Jennifer Rubin.

David, how are intelligence officials feeling today hearing that not only does the president not believe Russia meddled but is in part because he thinks Russia is so skilled our intel officials won't be able to figure it out?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, two points on that, Ana. First, I was just at the Annual Security Forum that's held at the Aspen Institute and Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, was there.

[18:05:05] The director of the CIA Mike Pompeo was there. The director of the National Security Agency, Mike Rogers, was there. The list goes on. Every one of them was asked, are you persuaded by the evidence that the Russians meddled in the election and every one of them said yes.

Coats went on further to say in fact the United States was taken a little bit by surprise by the Russian capability here to operate in such a sophisticated and subtle way. So clearly everybody who is walking in to do the briefings of the president is persuaded on it. So then the question is why is the president not. And I think that goes to two things.

He cannot separate in his mind, and I can understand this, I think it's more of an emotional reaction. He believes that if he allows the thought to be out there that the Russians meddled, it calls into question the legitimacy of his election. And yet you could easily make the argument the Russians meddled and that in the end it didn't have any effect on the vote. He's the only one who won't sort of go there.

On the question that Putin asked there, the president has told many people that Putin made the argument if it was the Russians they wouldn't have been caught. But clearly, this kind of hack made the spread the information is not the kind you can do in secret.

CABRERA: And yet it seems like the president believes Putin versus his own intelligence agencies. And as you just reiterated just this past weekend his officials, his intelligence appointed leaders, are still saying the opposite of what we're hearing from the president himself.

Now, Lynn, I want to talk a little bit about telling the truth. You know, one of the differences as you point out between Spicer and Scaramucci is this, you write, "Scaramucci can decode Trump's stream of conscious parentheticals because they are cut from the similar New York loaf." And you go on to write, "Spicer willfully plunged through the looking glass to tumble into that bad place where Trump is often parked. Where facts and truth are treated like bubbles that fizzle away."

So I understand your point there about the styles, the similar styles of Scaramucci and the comfort level that he gives the president who is obviously very media conscious. But ultimately how does Scaramucci avoid being brought down by the same inconsistencies and a shifting narrative that you point out cost Spicer his credibility?

LYNN SWEET, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, CHICAGO SUN TIMES: Well, he has to be more careful than he was today in his interview with Jake Tapper. He could have just not gone there. This is what surprising. People are going to look at these interviews as scholars reading the town. Every word is important here. Why would he -- was it bravado or what? I was talking to somebody who said and then it turns out to be the president.

Ana, this is very serious business. If he doesn't -- if he wants to control the message, he was the biggest revealer of all. We didn't need a leak. He delivered a news story that didn't have to be. Now I welcome that information. I worry that he is not necessarily very clear on what -- how to proceed to be truthful. But when he deleted his tweets, which he did over the weekend, he said to be transparent, I'm deleting my tweets. Well, those tweets will live on any way. It's not being transparent. It's -- I appreciate it. It's a heads up.

So I think it takes a little time for him to appreciate that he is in a role. Is he really just the PR man for the president to try and advance his agenda or is he trying to build persuasive cases for policies? My one last quick point. It seems that President Trump's -- whenever it's intelligence regarding him he's skeptical. We'll soon see if it's intelligence about something not about him, if he can figure out, if he's going to trust the U.S. intelligence corps.

CABRERA: Jennifer, you wrote a piece on Friday titled "The Presidency Can't Be Saved. It's All Downhill From Here." Now since then, there's been this major staff shakeup. There's a new communications director. Do you think Scaramucci could prove you wrong?

JENNIFER RUBIN, WRITER FOR RIGHT TURN BLOG, WASHINGTON POST: Not at all. I think he just underscores the problem as Lynn and others have pointed out. You cannot serve a dishonorable president in an honorable fashion. Trump does not recognize, does not accept true facts. He doesn't think that there are such things as facts. And if you're going to work for someone, if you're going to articulate, quote, "his point of view" then you're going to be articulating a lot of things that aren't true.

So my first suggestion for Mr. Scaramucci is to not go on television. He's the communications director. He's not the press secretary. So he doesn't need to be on TV. And the second is, to in fact get in front of the president and tell him what is true and suggest that they have to start embracing reality.

You do wonder if the president of the United States cannot accept true facts, how can you function as commander-in-chief?

[18:10:02] If he's not willing to accept reality because, as David correctly says, he thinks it harms his ego, he thinks it undermines his sense of accomplishment for having won the presidency, how is he functioning as president of the United States? And the answer is we have a problem. We have a real problem. So I think --

CABRERA: But let me stop you for just a second, Jennifer, because as we have also all discussed Scaramucci and Trump seemed to be cut from the same cloth. They're both New Yorkers. Maybe Scaramucci gets Trump in a way others in his inner circle don't. Could that be an advantage? Might this be the guy who actually Trump listens to?

RUBIN: Well, it depends what you think his job is. I tend to think the old fashion way that people in the White House are serving at the discretion of the president but they are serving the American people. And that you can't do this simply by channeling another guy's crazy thoughts. Secondly, it doesn't really work. He has to deal with the reality that is there. And simply enabling Trump to be more like Trump I don't think is a helpful thing for Trump. It certainly isn't a healthy thing for the country. CABRERA: David, Scaramucci talked about the Donald Trump Junior

meeting. He slammed the way it was handled from a communications perspective. Let's listen.


SCARAMUCCI: I didn't know about the meeting, but what I don't like about the way the thing was handled, from a communications and a strategy perspective, I think Donald Trump Junior got bad advice. They told him to put out a small statement. I'm telling you Donald J. Trump Jr. is a great guy. He didn't do anything wrong. I just think the mistake was in the way it was communicated. We started with one person and now we have an auditorium of Russians that he was speaking to or whatever the hell it was. And it's ridiculous.


CABRERA: David, with Scaramucci, could we see a White House that's more forthcoming with information versus this drip, drip, drip we've had?

SANGER: Well, you'd hope so. Because it's the drip, drip, drip that's doing them the most damage. And whether that was Donald Trump Junior or whether it was those who were advising him who didn't want him to put out the full account and then of course you'll remember that he went on FOX News, I think on the Hannity show, and he said I told you everything and then of course we immediately learn more.

But that was the fundamental problem in how they relayed the news. There was another fundamental problem here which is the judgment it shows when you get an e-mail that says a representative of the Russian government, whether she was or she wasn't, wants to give you information from the Russian government negative about your opponent. And that's the moment when you realize that you could be in the midst of a counter intelligence operation or you should realize that.

CABRERA: That should be the light bulb moment.

Lynn, the president tweeted again, just a short time ago, let me quote here, he says, "It's very sad that Republicans even some that were carried over the line on my back do very little to protect their president." What do you think he's referring to here?

SWEET: He's referring to himself. This is the personalization of the presidency. This is part of the new chaotic Trump administration where he is not used to dealing with 535 independently elected board of directors here.

CABRERA: But what does he not like what they're doing? What is it that he's talking about?

SWEET: Yes. I think -- my guess is maybe on health care. He thinks that he wants a bill, they should be delivering a bill. I think he doesn't quite understand this give and take doesn't just happen through a tweet and that it's not personal loyalty. And that people have their own constituents to deal with and the story isn't just he had my back, if indeed he did because all of the Republicans do not owe their positions in Congress to him. There's a lot going on in that tweet but it's this demand that I might have helped you, this quid pro quo, therefore you owe me. It won't work.

CABRERA: It all comes back to loyalty.


CABRERA: The importance of loyalty for this president.

Jennifer, when the leader of the free press goes and send a tweet, you know, he has 140 characters it does leave it open to interpretation in terms of what he is trying to communicate specifically. What do you think he was referring to when he is going after the Republicans there?

RUBIN: It's one of two things, I think. Either as Lynn said it has to do with he's not getting his health care bill. It might matter -- might help him actually if he cared what was in the health care bill, which has been one of the problems is that some of the members of Congress actually care what's in it and they have substantive disagreements. That's something that Trump doesn't seem to be able to relate to.

The other thing it could be is that you now have some Republicans, not enough in my view but some, who are coming out and saying if he fires the special prosecutor, there will be a huge blow back. And perhaps he doesn't like that. He thinks that they should accept that as well. And he has been, although they now deny it, at least tweeting about his intention to fire the independent -- the special prosecutor, rather, and to bring up conflicts of interest.

[18:15:04] So I think this has been the problem. This was the problem with Mr. Comey. This is the problem with the Justice Department. This is the problem with Congress. He thinks everyone -- like it's the mob that we, you know, all these independent people have to come kiss the ring. And in fact They have taken an oath to the Constitution to the United States of America.

And Trump does not make any distinction. That's how he ran his private businesses. That's his ego unfurled and really flying high now. And it's just incompatible with our constitutional democratic system.

CABRERA: Jennifer, David, Lynn, thank you all.

And straight ahead, breaking news. The death toll in a tragic accident in Texas now stands at nine. We have new details on a horrifying discovery inside a tractor trailer in San Antonio, in that Wal-Mart parking lot. Stay with us. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


[18:20:02] CABRERA: Breaking news on a horrifying human smuggling incident. Police found eight people dead locked in a blistering hot semi-truck alongside dozens of sick people struggling to stay alive in brutal San Antonio heat. A short time ago another victim died in a Texas hospital.

Authorities are now naming a suspect, 60-year-old James Bradley Junior. And earlier today authorities found him in his truck in a Wal-Mart parking lot about two and a half hours from the Mexico border. No air-conditioning, no water. San Antonio Fire's chief says many injured survivors will have irreversible brain damage.

I want to bring in Ed Lavandera in San Antonio.

Ed, what more are you learning about the suspect.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: As you mentioned he's 60-year-old James Bradley. He's from Clearwater, Florida. He's not been formally charged with any criminal charges as of yet, is what we understand. But we're told that he will be making a court appearance on Monday. So those criminal charges are coming at some point. It's very likely.

So still trying to learn more about him. And clearly what has interested these investigators is figuring out where he fits into what they've been describing as a human smuggling operation. Federal investigators have no doubt that that's exactly what was going on here.

The truck was discovered just after midnight in the parking lot of this Wal-Mart. A store employee was approached by someone asking for water. That led them to the truck. And that's where they found the people. Nine people have died. Eight of them were found -- eight bodies were found here in the truck. A ninth person has died in the hospital throughout the day today. And there's still nearly 20 people who are in critical condition. So this is still very much a situation where we could see the death toll continue to go up.

The situation inside that truck the way officials and authorities and first responders have described it is simply horrifying where temperatures reached more than 150 degrees. The fire chief says if there was a refrigeration system in the trailer of that truck but that it wasn't operational -- Ana.

CABRERA: So, so bad to hear all of that news, Ed. What more can you tell us about those who are hospitalized and their condition?

LAVANDERA: Well, those situations are critical. As I mentioned, there's been 20 -- 20 people we understand still in critical condition. Obviously, the heat exhaustion and asphyxiation has been a real threat to their conditions that they will be in. It's still very much up in the air so we'll see how that continues to unfold.

We've also been told that there were two 15-year-olds inside the truck that are being treated in the hospital. But that most people inside the truck were men from the ages of 20 -- in their 20s and 30s.

Now we've also been told by the acting ICE director that at some point throughout the journey, exactly at one point, there might have more than a hundred people inside the trailer of this truck.

CABRERA: Wow. LAVANDERA: So if that is the case, there's still plenty of people

that investigators will be very anxious to speak with. But a horrifying tragic situation that has unfolded here in this parking lot in southwest San Antonio.

As you mentioned, we're about a two-hour drive from the U.S.-Mexico border, and just along Interstate 35 and this is a very common sight. This type of smuggling in this part of Texas very common.

CABRERA: Ed Lavandera, reporting there from San Antonio, thanks.

And we did just get a statement from the governor of Texas saying, "The human trafficking is an epidemic that Texas is working to eradicate." And he calls it a heartbreaking tragedy.

Coming up, does a newly revealed document from Ken Starr, the special prosecutor whose investigation led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, provide a road map for Robert Mueller and his investigation into the Trump's campaign possible ties with Russia?

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


[18:27:59] CABRERA: A newly discovered memo that was locked away in the National Archives for nearly two decades is addressing a question that's been raised amid this growing Trump-Russia inquiry. Can a sitting president be indicted?

The 56-page manual obtained by the "New York Times" is part of Kenneth Star's independent investigation into President Bill Clinton. And it reads in part, quote, "It is proper, constitutional and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of and are contrary to the president's official duty. In this country no one, even President Clinton, is above the law."

The question now, could Special Counsel Robert Mueller rely on that memo's findings if he wants to pursue a Trump indictment?

I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Paul Callan as well as CNN political analyst and historian Julian Zelizer.

So, Paul, we've heard from other legal scholars here on this show saying indicting a president can't happen. What do you make of this new memo?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I wanted to start by saying I think we should begin by saying there's no evidence at this point that the president could be indicted right now. I mean, Mueller hasn't said I've got the evidence and I want to indict him.



CALLAN: So this discussion --

CABRERA: But this is a question of whether --

CALLAN: Well, we're having an academic discussion about it, OK.

CABRERA: Exactly.

CALLAN: Just so that I don't get attacked at 3:00 in the morning via Twitter for saying that the president should be indicted. It's an interesting constitutional dispute and most constitutional scholars, at least up until the president, have felt that the president is immune while he's sitting as president. He can be impeached, removed from office and then charged with a crime.

This new memo, though, that was prepared when Kenneth Star was investigating Bill Clinton suggests quite to the contrary. That because the Constitution has no explicit language prohibiting an indictment of the president, that a president could be indicted. However, of course, Star never did indict Clinton and Leon Jaworski who was the special prosecutor under Nixon, or one of the popular under Nixon --

CABRERA: During Watergate.

CALLAN: Yes. Never indicted Nixon as well, although Jaworski's counsel also felt it was legal and it could have been done.

[18:30:05] CABRERA: So isn't that interesting that they agreed it was a possibility, but yet it's never been put to the test because they chose to go a different route, Julian. Instead, they chose to go the impeachment route.


CABRERA: Why would they choose to make that political?

ZELIZER: Well, first, this is -- I mean, this is an argument that could go both ways. Generally, there are a lot of legal scholars who say that this is not the path to take.

In part, it's to protect the presidency. The idea is that the president can't be consumed with an indictment. The idea is to separate power and to maintain that.

And finally, we have an impeachment process. And if you are going to, in some ways, to threaten the election, the outcome of the election, that this is the process we should use. That's the decision Ken Starr made and that's certainly the decision that was used for Nixon.

CABRERA: So, Paul, today, the President tweeted this, and I'll read it.

As the phony Russian witch hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold, Democrats and Russians. Again, if, and it's a big if, if Mueller found evidence of a crime

that implicated the President, do you think it would be in his best interest instead of having an indictment, putting out the information that he has publicly and essentially forcing Congress to go forward in impeachment?

CALLAN: If we follow history, that's what prior special counsels have done. Jaworski followed that route. Ken Starr that route. And just to throw another complication into this --

CABRERA: I mean, is that --

CALLAN: -- into the mix --

CABRERA: But is that then giving the responsibility to somebody else and kind of just saying, I don't want to have to deal with this?

CALLAN: Well, it is, but that -- I think our constitution is set up that way, so -- and the constitution specifies that the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach a president. And the constitution does mention that the pardon power cannot be used to avoid impeachment but that you can be charged criminally after removal from office. So it does sound like the thought -- the founding fathers did think about this issue.

CABRERA: Let me ask you about pardoning and show you another tweet because the President's thinking about pardons apparently, as well. On his mind, that word.

While we all agree the U.S. president has the complete power to pardon -- which I still think, according to those we've talked to, is still in question. But he writes, why think of that when only crime so far is leaks against us, fake news.

Julian, what if Trump were to try to pardon himself or other members of his team? What happens? Where does it go?

ZELIZER: Well, I think you'd see a huge political backlash. I think if there is he could do to trigger an impeachment process almost immediately, that would be it. So part of the question would be, can he pardon himself? And this could go -- it would go into the courts. But I do think you might kind of break that Republican firewall that he is dependent on if he did this.

CABRERA: Some have used the term "constitutional crisis."

ZELIZER: I think you would create it with this.

CALLAN: Yes. I don't think he would ever pardon himself because it would lead to impeachment. But I'll tell you something else that you'll make your head spin. Here is another thing you could do under the constitution.


CALLAN: Under the 25th Amendment, the President could declare himself disabled and allow Pence to become acting --

CABRERA: He could declare himself that?

CALLAN: That's right.


CALLAN: -- to allow Pence to become Acting President. Pence could then pardon Trump, and Trump could declare himself once again ready to assume the presidency and become president again. He'd be pardoned without having to do it himself and still president.


CALLAN: How do you like that?

ZELIZER: Right. Yes.


ZELIZER: I mean, before we get that --


ZELIZER: OK, and he start it, we're not there yet.

CABRERA: We just went down the rabbit hole, I think.

ZELIZER: Right. And I think --

CALLAN: Yes, we did.

ZELIZER: I mean, this is why the congressional investigation that's going on right now, in addition to Mueller, is so important. That this is done well.


ZELIZER: Because where the discussions are leading. But before we get there, we really need to air what's happened, what went on, and --

CALLAN: And remember there's no --

ZELIZER: -- whether there is culpability.

CALLAN: There is no evidence of a crime --


CALLAN: -- by the President at this point in time. And this is as an academic discussion between a lawyer and a Princeton professor. That's all.

CABRERA: Two smart guys.

CALLAN: All right? CABRERA: And I appreciate you giving us that information, your

insight, and advice.

ZELIZER: Thank you.

CALLAN: All right.

CABRERA: Thank you.

CALLAN: Thank you.

CABRERA: Julian Zelizer, Paul Callan, always good to see you guys.

Coming up, always intriguing. Prince William and Prince Harry open up in a new interview about why they regret their last conversation with their mother, their last phone call, and their lasting love for Princess Diana.


PRINCE WILLIAM ARTHUR PHILIP LOUIS, UNITED KINGDOM: We felt, you know, incredibly loved and I am -- I'm very grateful that the love still feels there.

[18:34:31] PRINCE HENRY CHARLES ALBERT DAVID, UNITED KINGDOM: It was that love that even if she was on the other side of a room that you -- as a son, you could feel it.



CABRERA: Nearly 20 years after her death, Prince William and Prince Harry say they have deep regrets over the last moment they spoke with their mother, Princess Diana. The royal brothers express sorrow over a brief, final phone call that took place just hours before Diana's tragic death in Paris car crash.

CNN Correspondent Nina dos Santos has more on the revelations from a new British documentary.


NINA DOS SANTOS, CNNMONEY EUROPE EDITOR: Almost 20 years since Diana, Princess of Wales died, her sons, Princes William and Harry, have given what is probably their most candid, on camera interview yet. Here are some highlights of this very moving interview.

PRINCE HARRY: Our mother was a total kid through and through. When everybody says to me, you know, so she was fun, give us an example, all I can hear is her laugh in my head and that sort of crazy laugh, where there is pure happiness shown on her face.

One of her mottos to me was, you can be as naughty as you want, just don't get caught. She was one of the naughtiest parents. She would come and watch us play football and, you know, smuggle sweets into our socks.

And, I mean, it's quite literally walking back from a football match and having a lot of sort of five packets of Star Buzz. And just the whole shirt was just bulging with sweets. And then I started looking around, looking for a top box, throw it all in, lock it up.

[18:40:13] PRINCE WILLIAM: There's a couple of memories I have that are particularly funny, just outside this room where we are now. She organized, when I came home from school, to have Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington, and Naomi Campbell waiting at the top of the stairs.

I was probably a 12 or 13-year-old boy. I had posters of them on this wall. And I went bright red and didn't quite know what to say and sort of fumbled. And I think I pretty much fell down the stairs on the way up.

I was completely and awfully sort of awe struck. And that was a very funny memory that lived with me forever by her loving embarrassing and sort of, you know, being this sort of a joker.

DOS SANTOS: Well, the princes talk about the mischievous side of Princess Diana. That was one of the surprises she was famous for throwing for them.

But aside from the heartwarming moments, there's also poignant moments in this film, and it is when Prince Harry, in particular, says that he doesn't really remember what the last words he said to his mother were on the night that she died.

Only that he will regret for the rest of his life cutting the conversation short because it seemed as though the princes were playing with their cousins. And they didn't like spending too much time on the telephone to their parents, and so the conversation was briefer than they would have liked.

These are just some of the snippets that have come out as the two princes have said this is a one-off occasion, when they're going to opening up their feelings and their memories of their mother so that the rest of the country and the rest of the world can remember her too in August.

Nina dos Santos, CNN, London.


CABRERA: Thanks, Nina. Coming up, chairs fly at a California Starbucks. But look closely here.

This isn't just a case of too much caffeine. We'll tell you what was going down, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


[18:46:17] CABRERA: We're back with video you have to see. Watch what happens when a customer jumps in to stop a robbery at a California Starbucks.

You see the suspect here who walks up to the counter, holding a knife and apparently a toy gun, demanding money from barista. When this man, 58-year-old Craig Jerry, realizes what's happening, he takes matters into his own hands.

He goes after the suspect with chair. The two men start fighting, and the customer eventually wrestles the man to the ground. Both men end up stabbed during this altercation but are expected to be OK.

Police are calling the customer here a courageous hero for his actions.

And frightening new surveillance video shows the moment a massive fire breaks out at a car dealership in Michigan. Take a look at this.

Investigators say a cleaner was buffing the floor when he sparked this fire that destroyed at least 20 cars. The cleaner originally told a 911 operator a leaking fuel tank sparked this blaze. But in the video, you see him knocking over a gas tank right before those flames break out.

Investigators say they believe this fire was an accident but they fault the cleaner for not noticing the spilled gasoline.

Chalk up another major achievement for pro-golfer Jordan Spieth. The 23-year-old, if you can believe, won the Open Championship in England by three shots today.

The American did it by bouncing back from a terrible tee shot midway through the back nine and wound up playing the last four holes in five under par. Talk about just staying calm under pressure. And what an amazing victory!

He has now won three of golf's four majors at the tender age of 23. Only Jack Nicholas also accomplished that fete before turning 24.

And now, here is CNN Chief Business Correspondent Christine Romans with this week's "Before the Bell."

Hi, Christine.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana. This week is still all about corporate profits. Second quarter earnings flood in and big profits are driving stocks to record highs.

Stocks are on a stunning winning streak, Ana. All the major U.S. stock market averages hit highs last week. Proof investors are unfazed by President Trump's political troubles.

You know, the stock market doesn't measure Main Street and how Main Street feels, but rather it reflects how much money companies are making. And corporate profits are fat.

Now, the President often takes credit for the stock market which Horizon Investments' Greg Valliere says is fair. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREG VALLIERE, CHIEF GLOBAL STRATEGIST, HORIZON INVESTMENTS: You got to be fair. I mean, there's a real pro-business climate here in this city, and he has a lot to do with it.


ROMANS: Donald Trump is a pro-business president. He has rolled back environmental and worker regulations at a blistering space.

Still, taking credit for the stock market can be risky. No rally lasts forever. Every president since World War II has experienced a 20 percent drop in the stock market in his tenure, and the current bull market, Ana, is the second longest on record.



[18:53:37] O.J. SIMPSON, FORMER NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE RUNNING BACK: I have basically spent a conflict-free life.


CABRERA: A conflict-free life. That was O.J. Simpson making his case before a parole board last week after serving nearly nine years behind bars for a Las Vegas robbery.

His choice of words there came as a surprise to many people who watched the football star during the so-called trial of the century when he was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

It's one of the stories explored on tonight's episode of the CNN original series, "THE NINETIES." Here's a preview.


MATT LAUER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Homicide detectives in Los Angeles are telling the Associated Press that O.J. Simpson's arrest is imminent in connection with the killings of his ex-wife and a friend.

GIL GARCETTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Today, my office filed murder charges against O.J. Simpson for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. As of this time, approximately 3:00 p.m., no one knows where he is.

We thought that the evidence was overwhelming. There was no doubt. This is the man who committed the crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're looking at a live picture right now.

Do you believe that to be O.J. Simpson down there below you? NELSON GEORGE, AUTHOR AND FILMMAKER: O.J. was a guy who felt like he

was above race. He became the exceptional Hollywood Negro, had a blond wife. He lived in Brentwood. He played the role very well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: O.J. is sitting there in the passenger with a gun pointed at his own head.

[18:55:01] GARCETTI: If the person that had murdered two White people was a street thug, it wouldn't have been a case. But it was this kind of icon --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We understand O.J. is in custody.

GARCETTI: -- and you don't want to believe that this kind of person would have done this.


CABRERA: Joining us now, CNN political commentator and host of BET News, Marc Lamont Hill.

Marc, watching O.J. Simpson there in front of the parole board this week caused a lot of people to think back to where they were when that verdict was read in his murder trial.

It also triggered those memories of this divided reaction we saw. Again, 20 years ago, we had African-Americans cheering the verdict. A lot of White people were appalled. Do you think we're as divided today racially as we were back then?

DR. MARC LAMONT HILL, BET NEWS HOST: Absolutely. And, of course, there were Blacks who didn't applaud and Whites who weren't disappointed. But you're right, the -- it was -- the results and the responses were definitely drawn along racial lines back then.

And we see it again now after the death of Trayvon Martin, after the death of Mike Brown. We saw people divided along racial lines when it came to the acquittal of George Zimmerman or the non-indictment of Darren Wilson. This happens over and over again.

People look at the world through very different lenses and those lenses are colored, pardon the expression, by race. And so in many ways, O.J. Simpson and the entire '90s were filled with these reminders that race is still a very relevant issue that has not been sufficiently wrestled with by the American people.

CABRERA: The '90s didn't just give us O.J. Simpson and the Mark Fuhrman tapes. It also gave us the Rodney King video, the L.A. riots.

HILL: Oh, yes.

CABRERA: How do these incidents compare to what we're seeing today with the viral videos showing the tensions between the African- American community and police?

HILL: Well, it's the same story, right? A Black person bears witness to police violence, police terrorism, state violence, and everyone says, oh, you're exaggerating. Oh, it didn't happen.

I mean, in the '90s, there were times when 98 to 99 percent of complaints about police to the LAPD were found unworthy of further investigation. And so people didn't believe you.

Then you get the Rodney King videotape. And suddenly, America says, hey, wait a minute, this might be real. Hey, wait a minute, something's happening.

And yet despite seeing those police beat Rodney King over and over again, they still said not guilty. And, again, we saw Walter Scott get shot in the back running away. It didn't seem to matter. We saw Eric Garner choked out on tape. It didn't seem to matter.

Black witness simply doesn't matter because Black lives simply doesn't matter in America nearly as much as it should. The '90s told us that, and this documentary does a fabulous job of capturing that. And, again, right now, we're living it over and over again.

CABRERA: But, Marc, it seems awfully cynical to think we haven't come very far since then. You really believe that?

HILL: Yes. I mean, when you look at the numbers of mass incarceration, when you look at the number of people who are killed through state agents or through vigilantes right now, when you look at the number of police who are acquitted for the deaths of Black citizens or just unarmed citizens, the mentally ill citizens or underage citizens, those numbers are very consistent.

It doesn't mean that there has been no progress on the racial front. The fact that there is any outrage right now suggests that there is some level of progress, but the language of progress can become seductive.

And it can become intoxicating and it can become confusing, so that we start to ignore the fact that we have so much work to do. This documentary of the '90s is a measure of where we were, but also where we need to be.

CABRERA: Let me ask you about a current case happening right now, outrage in Minneapolis. There was an officer who accidentally shot and killed a White woman from Australia.

This is the same area, let me remind our viewers, that just saw the acquittal of an officer in the deadly shooting of an African-American man, Philando Castile. Now, all of this led writer, David Love, to argue in a piece for that when White lives are at stake, society takes notice.

Marc, do you believe that's what happened here, it takes a White victim for society to address problems?

HILL: Absolutely. White lives are simply worth more in the public imagination, in the legal system, in everyday life, in the public sentiment. Black misery simply doesn't register the same way that might White misery does. When there was a drug epidemic in the '80s, it's lock them up. When

White people showed up suddenly on crystal meth or heroin or crack, it's, oh, my God, we need to invest, we need to do rehab. We need to support them.

When Black girls aren't found, they're just gone. When White girls are missing, they're missing and we need to find them. And we do specials on them and we look out for them.

We're still looking for JonBenet Ramsey 20 years later, as we should be. But I also want to be looking for LaToyia Figueroa in Philadelphia. I also want to be looking for a whole village of Chibok girls in Nigeria. I also want to be looking for girls in D.C.

But, again, Black misery doesn't count as much. That's why when a White woman dies, we want justice. When Black people die, we want just trust the process.

CABRERA: Marc Lamont hill, always appreciate your thoughtful points. Thanks for coming on.

HILL: Thank you.

CABRERA: Nice to talk to you tonight.

HILL: My pleasure.

CABRERA: You can relive the decade when race relations reached a new boiling point, "THE NINETIES" tonight at 9:00 Eastern, coming up next only here on CNN.

And that's going to do it for me. So glad to have your company tonight. Up next, it is "THE NINETIES," the one about T.V. before we get to that one on race.

Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Ana Cabrera. Have a great night and great weekend.