Return to Transcripts main page


Uma Thurman Reveals Details of Weinstein Attacks; New Witnesses Come Forward in Natalie Wood Drowning Case; Super Bowl to be Coldest in History. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 3, 2018 - 17:00   ET


ANA CABRERA, ANCHOR, CNN: You're live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thanks for joining us. The highly anticipated GOP memo, the one that claims to reveal abuses by top DOJ and FBI officials has been public now for just over 24 hours and what exactly it proves depends on who you ask.

According to the President, it clears him. "This memo totally vindicates Trump in probe," he writes, "But the Russian witch hunt goes on and on, there was no collusion, there was no obstruction. The word now used because after one year of looking endlessly and finding nothing, collusion is dead. This is an American disgrace."

You may recall earlier this week, CNN was reporting the President had been calling friends making similar claims. He told them this memo would reveal that top FBI and DOJ officials are biased against him. He also thought it would undermine the Russia investigation.

Members of the President's own party, however, says the memo does no such thing and was never intended to.


PAUL RYAN, HOUSE SPEAKER, REPUBLICAN: This memo is not indictment of the FBI, of the Department of Justice, it does not impugn the Mueller investigation or the Deputy Attorney General.


CABRERA: We have live team coverage. CNN White House correspondent Boris Sanchez is with us in West Palm Beach where the President is spending another weekend, and CNN Crime and Justice reporter, Shimon Prokupeczis in Washington. So, Boris, I want to start with you. The President's tweet appears to confirm our reporting that the President sees this memo as undermining the Mueller investigation. What's the White House saying?

BORIS SANCHEZ, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Hey, there, Ana. Well, all week, the White House, most officials at the White House have essentially confirmed what you heard from House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans, that this memo releasing it is specifically about transparency. That it has nothing to do with the Russia investigation, but in one swift tweet, the President making it clear that to him, this memo discredits the Russia investigation and proves that it is a witch hunt, that investigators at the Department of Justice and at the FBI are out to get him.

Similarly, there's contrasting messaging coming from the White House when it comes to the fate of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and how much confidence the President has in him. I want you to listen to two sound bites. First, here's President Trump after he was asked by reporters whether he has confidence in the Deputy Attorney General. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you still have confidence in him after reading the memo?



SANCHEZ: Not exactly a ringing endorsement, Ana. The President was also asked about the memo, and he said that a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves. We should note that Rod Rosenstein is mentioned in the memo by name. Here's Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah being asked last night on CNN if the President has confidence in Rosenstein. Listen to the difference.


RAJ SHAH, DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY, WHITE HOUSE: Well, I'm saying it on behalf of the White House, and that's that, you know, no changes are going to be made at the Department of Justice. We fully expect Rod Rosenstein to continue on as the Deputy Attorney General.


SANCHEZ: Sources close to the President familiar with his thinking tell CNN that there is no consideration at this time by the White House of firing Rod Rosenstein, in part because the President fears that doing that may prolong the Russia investigation.

We should note, though, Ana, we have seen in the past similar votes of confidence from this administration for a number of different officials, only for those officials to be shown the door soon thereafter, Ana.

CABRERA: The President's his own boss. He makes that very clear. Shimon, the FBI had warned the President against releasing this memo. His FBI director that he picked out said he had grave concerns and we reported on Thursday, Director Christopher Wray was then seething behind the scenes. How are intelligence officials reacting?

SHIMON PROKUPECZIS , CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER, CNN: Yes, I mean, and that has to do with in terms of the FBI and the FBI Director, are these omissions? It's really what's not in the memo that has caused them concern because, you know, as we have been saying, it just doesn't paint a full picture of the intelligence of what the FBI did, of the FISA process and this is certainly a concern not only of the FBI Director but the men and women of the FBI -- the analysts, the agents -- who put these FISA warrants together, who put these applications together to go to a FISA court and seek this kind of very invasive warrant, very secret type of move that the FBI very much takes seriously.

So, as a result of that, knowing just what a wild week this has been and really what a wild time this has been for the FBI in the last several months, the attacks they have taken from the President, from members of Congress, Christopher Wray, the FBI Director, put a video together, about an eight-minute video yesterday, where he addressed his troops. Sort of a pep talk telling them, you know, I know this has been a hard time. Keep doing what you're doing. Keep your head down. Keep moving forward. And then he said this, and let me go ahead and read that to you now. "You have all been through a lot in the past nine months, and I know it's often been unsettling, to say the least, and the past few days haven't done much to calm those waters. So, I want to make sure that you know where I stand," he says, "And what I want us to do moving forward. Let me be clear. I stand fully committed to our mission. I stand by our shared determination to do our work independently and by the book. I stand with you," he says.

And then, in this last line here, he says, "Talk is cheap. The work you do is what will endure." Great words here from folks, you know, from folks that I have talked to at the FBI. They were happy to see this message. They feel they have been through a lot, and certainly to have their leader standing up for them in that statement that he put out, standing up to the President, standing up to members of Congress, has certainly gone a long way for them.

CABRERA: Boris, thank you. Same to Shimon. We appreciate both of your reporting. Joining us now to talk more about this, CNN National Security analyst Steve Hall, Former Justice Department Prosecutor Christopher Hunter, he is also running for Congress by the way as a Democrat in Florida, and senior fellow at the R. Street Institute and a former Whitewater investigator, Paul Rosenzweig.

So, Steve, let me read you something Senator John McCain said about this memo. He writes, "The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests, no parties, no Presidents, only Putin's." Do you agree? Is the Republican party doing the bidding of Russians by putting out this memo?

STEVE HALL, NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, CNN: Well, it's more than just the Republican Party, although I do believe they happen to bear a significant, you know, part of the blame on this.

There's no doubt that this is working out very well for Vladimir Putin. What we're seeing is the end results, the conclusions of the influence and propaganda operation, the active measures operation that the Russians began back in 2016, actually earlier than that.

And again, the goal of that was to exploit fissures in our society, to take advantage of cracks in our democracy, and not just our democracy, by the way. They're doing this in other places as well in Western Europe. But yes, Ana, this is absolutely something that has to make Vladimir Putin very happy because it's working out well for the Russians on this.

CABRERA: Chris, what do you see as the impact of this memo internally with these intelligence investigators?

CHRISTOPHER HUNTER, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROSECUTOR: Well, there are a few troubling aspects about what's happened. The first is what Steve mentioned. Russia has long sought to destabilize our democracy. That's not new. What is new is the willingness of Devin Nunes and the White House to run a disinformation campaign of the same type that Russian intelligence would run. That's shocking and it's also unconscionable.

As applied to the Department of Justice and the FBI, the attacks on both are undermining public confidence and eroding public trust. That has public safety consequences and national security consequences. Ana, all it takes for a criminal to go free in a federal jury trial is for one juror to disbelieve an FBI agent or disbelieve a DOJ prosecutor. There's a serious trickle-down effect that will have an impact in the courtroom in the day-to-day work of the men and women of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

CABRERA: So, Paul, the Republicans who voted to release this memo say they're doing it in the best interest of upholding these American institutions, protecting the integrity. there are problems within, they believe, exist. And that is why they made this memo public. Does it add up to you?

PAUL ROSENZWEIG, SENIOR FELLOW, R. STREET INSTITUTE: Well, taking the memo on its face and excluding any political explanation, it still doesn't make the case. As they describe it, this was a process that worked. It was a FISA application that was renewed not once, not twice, not three times, but four times. Each time based upon at least in part the evidence collected as part of the investigation.

So, what it really says to me is that it shows a system that's working and an intelligence community that's accurately targeting somebody that the Russians tried to recruit as a spy, Carter Page. That doesn't seem to me like a great flaw at all.

CABRERA: So, you don't believe that this memo actually shows abuse of the system?

ROSENZWEIG: I think it's clear that it doesn't show it. I mean, maybe there's more there than we know, but so much of what this memo portrays is actually the process at work. An example, the October 21st FISA application that is at the heart of this was just 20 days before the November 9th election. It doesn't make any sense at all to suggest that the FBI and DOJ have a plan to harm President Trump or the Trump campaign when they wait to take action until 20 days before the election with evidence that won't come in until well after the election is completed.

The logical inconsistencies in the memo are so ripe that it's difficult to credit it as a serious effort at transparency and oversight. CABRERA: Chris, part of the problem that Christopher Wray, the FBI

Director, who was picked by President Trump, has pointed out is that there are a lot of omissions when it comes to what information was there as part of this FISA warrant application. So, why not declassify the entire FISA warrant application? Put all of the evidence out there for the public to see in the name of transparency?

HUNTER: Well, Ana, the Nunes memo is intentionally misleading. When I was an agent, I worked foreign counterintelligence. So, I wrote a FISA application targeting agents of a hostile power. Those FISA applications are prepared by career FBI agents, reviewed by career Department of Justice attorneys. There's nothing political about that process.

What the White House fears and what Devin Nunes and his allies on the House Intelligence Committee fear is the truth. Now, look, Donald Trump is acting like a cornered criminal. When criminals are caught, and their backs are against the wall, the law is against them. The facts are against them. They come out swinging, and that's exactly what he's doing. He has what I call a Fifth Avenue mentality.

We all recall what he said during the campaign, I could walk in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any support. Ana, that's exactly what we're seeing right now. We're seeing obstruction of justice right before our very eyes.

CABRERA: Steve, it seems to me that people are seeing what they want to see in this memo. People who believed all along that there is some kind of bias within the law enforcement investigative ranks up at the levels of the FBI and the Justice Department. They are bias against the President in some way are finding what they want to see in this memo, and those who feel strongly that this memo is inaccurate have reasons to believe that, saying that the facts that were put in the memo were cherry picked. Would it help to, again, shed more light on the FISA warrant application, Steve, or does that put those systems at risk to release the FISA warrant?

HALL: Ana, this is one of the most insidious things about this memo and it kind of drives me crazy. It drives me crazy because I have seen the Russians do this all the time. So, what you're positing here, and it's a very good question. Everybody wants transparency, right? Everybody wants to get to the bottom of things. And so, you know, it's a natural thing to say, well, we didn't know about this memo. Some people say one thing, some people say something else. Let's just declassify it. There'd probably hundreds of pages that went into the four FISA applications, affidavits that went to four federal judges.

The problem with that, of course, is that it does expose sources and methods which can be a problem. So, those people who are holding the memo out there and saying, "Hey, we wanted greater transparency," they know very well that declassifying the information behind the memo which would tell the full story is going to be very difficult.

Remember what Vladimir Putin did not too long ago, he said, "You guys say I meddled in the American elections? Where's your proof?" He knows our proof is classified. It comes from spy work and that we can't disclose it. This memo essentially does the same thing, Ana.

CABRERA: So, Chris, let me read you a quote from a former supervisory agent with the FBI who served as a counterterrorism investigator. He was a special assistant to the bureau's director. He writes this. "A small number of my current and retired colleagues have said that we should simply keep our heads down until the storm passes. I say this with the greatest respect. They are wrong. If those who know the agency best remain silent, it will be defined by those with partisan agendas." Do you agree?

HUNTER: I agree that it's time for the men and women who believe in our democratic institutions and in the ideals that undergird them to stand up for them. This is a challenge that each of us has to opportunity to rise to in any of a number of ways. For the men and women who are at work in the FBI, their job has become much harder, thanks to the attacks that they are receiving on a daily basis.

So, on the one hand, I admire those who have the ability to stand up and speak publicly. But also, I admire those who despite it all, put their head down, keep their nose to the grindstone, and protect the American public.

One of the challenges that the FBI faces now, especially in counter intelligence is source recruitment. When FBI agents are recruiting sources, to try to protect our national security, those sources have to trust the FBI agent who is recruiting the person. The sources have to trust that the FBI will treat them well, treat them fairly, and one of the consequences of these attacks is destabilizing that trust.

One of the questions I ask myself is, what information are we not knowing? Because sources who otherwise could provide information about a counterintelligence threat are instead staying quiet.

CABRERA: We'll leave it there, guys. Paul, Steve, and Chris, thank you all.

Coming up, the President says the Nunes memo completely vindicates him in the Russia investigation. Does it actually? If so, what does that mean for the investigation? we'll discuss.

And also, ahead, Uma Thurman tells her Harvey Weinstein story. What she says happened to her and how his lawyers are now responding.

Welcome back. President Trump is claiming complete vindication from a controversial memo that he wanted the public to see, even before he saw it himself. And now that he's seen it, well, listen.


TRUMP: I think it's terrible. You want to know the truth. I think it's a disgrace, what's going on in this country, I think it's a disgrace, and when you look at that and you see that, and so many other things, what's going on. A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves, and much worse than that.

(VIDEOCLIP ENDS) CABRERA: Joining me now is CNN senior political commentator and

former adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod. So, David, first, let me just get your reaction to this memo being released in defiance of the FBI.

DAVID AXELROD, SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN: Well, the FBI, the Justice Department, the Director of National Intelligence and we should point out that all of the people involved there were Trump appointees. So, he defied his own appointees in releasing this memo, and he seemed determined to do it because he thinks that it supports his contention that we have heard now for a year that this probe was politically motivated.

CABRERA: Why do you think Republicans went along with it?

AXELROD: Because I think they feel pressure from him and from their base to do it. But if you look at the memo, it really seems like something that was generated on the outer fringes of the internet. You know, this sort of lunatic fringe on the internet, conspiracy theory kind of cobbled together with insinuation, weaving all of the people who the President feels has -- have dealt with him unfairly, Comey and Sally Yates and Rosenstein, and the whole -- and Andrew McCabe.

CABRERA: Although we should be careful because Wray doesn't necessarily say that it's full of lies. He only suggests that it's not accurate because of omissions.

AXELROD: Well, I mean there are -- he said it was misleading.

CABRERA: And yet you have somebody like the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who in the past hasn't been lock step with this President, and he supported this memo's release. Let's listen to his reasoning.



PAUL RYAN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, REPUBLICAN: The more transparency, the better. This memo is not indictment of the FBI, of the Department of Justice. It does not impugn the Mueller investigation or the Deputy Attorney General.


CABRERA: So, David, what do you make of that argument?

AXELROD: Well, the irony of that comment is that it was completely undercut by the President's own tweets on Friday morning in which he -- in which he said exactly the opposite, that it was all about the probe and the malfeasance of people at the FBI and the Justice Department. It was all politically motivated.

I think he made Speaker Ryan look foolish with those tweets, but he was -- you know, I am sure that's what motivated this memo and the President's desire to get it out. The question is why did Speaker Ryan allow it to come out? And I think he's under pressure from the President and from his own base to allow it to go forward.

I think he's going to live to regret that. I think this is going to be something that he's going to look back on and say, "I let my institution down. I let the country down."

CABRERA: I want to read you what the former FBI Director James Comey tweeted about this memo. "That's it? Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House Intel Committee, destroyed trust with the intelligence community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified information in investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ and FBI must keep doing their jobs." What do you think the impact of this will be?

AXELROD: Well, I think there has been institutional damage. I mean, a House that was already badly ridden on partisan lines is now, even more so, you know, this was an unprecedented act. And so, I think that is one element of it. It sows mistrust of the investigative process, and I think that is another intent here, to try and create a cloud around all of this.

So that if there is a bad result for the President or if he decides not to testify that he will have some cover, and Republicans will have some cover to claim that it's all political, but there's real institutional damage to that, to the Justice Department, the FBI, our intelligence community, and to morale in those agencies.

CABRERA: Although Republicans are arguing that this is to ensure that these institutions maintain integrity.

AXELROD: Listen, I think there should be oversight over these institutions, but that oversight should be done on a nonpartisan basis and that's how these intelligence committees in both the House and Senate have operated in the past.

That precedent was broken with this Nunes memo.

CABRERA: Of course, the allegations within this memo are that there were surveillance abuses under the Obama Administration, and in fact, First Lady Michelle Obama just happened to do her first TV interview in recent days since they left the White House. Let's listen to a clip.


MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER FIRST LADE OF THE UNITED STATES: Forget what they're saying in Washington. That's not necessarily who we are. We know who we are, and I know who this country is because I went out to towns and cities all over the place, and even if people didn't agree with me or my husband, they were kind. They were hard working, they were trying to do the right things every day and that's what we have to remember about each other. That's who we are.


CABRERA: So, she wasn't asked about the memo because this was before this memo was released, but on the note of what she just said, how do you think the Obamas are viewing the partisan divide over the release of this memo?

AXELROD: You know, I know, I worked for Barack Obama for many years and I know him very well. He wasn't perfect because no one is perfect, but I know how much he brooded about doing the right thing for the institutions of our democracy, and that he tried to make those decisions regardless of party. To make sure that he was living up to his responsibility, his constitutional responsibility as a trustee of our democracy.

I haven't talked to him in the last few days, but I have to believe that he has concern less about the politics of this moment than about the implications for our democracy and its institutions.

CABRERA: Of course, you have your new episode of The Axe Files tonight. let's talk about that. You had a chance to sit down with somebody we all know, Whoopi Goldberg. Let's play a clip.


WHOOPI GOLDBERG, AMERICAN ACTRESS: The nonsense about, you know, whether Barack Obama was an American citizen.

AXELROD: You actually had a pretty sharp confrontation with him about this on "The View" in 2011.


I think that's the biggest pile of dog mess I have heard in ages. The President asked to be shown the birth certificate. When you become a President of the United States of America, you know that he is American.

AXELROD: Why did that offend you so much?

GOLDBERG: Because I know he went to school. And I know he knows that Hawaii was part of the United States, and I know that the real bottom line of that conversation was how can he be our President?


CABRERA: So, Whoopi clearly doesn't hold back. It's like why don't you tell us how you really feel?

AXELROD: Well, she clearly feels strongly about this. What was interesting is that she's known Donald Trump longer than most. She's -- they're fellow New Yorkers. They actually, a little-known fact, acted in a movie together "The Little Rascals" back in the early '90s. The President was Waldo's dad. And she has very strong feelings about who Donald Trump is. So strong that in fact she wouldn't use his name in the interview and I asked her why, and she talked about that.

CABRERA: Is this the guy who she remembers or has he changed?

AXELROD: No, she said, "I think this is who he's always been." And so, it was an interesting conversation. We didn't just talk about Donald Trump, but we talked about the me too movement. We talked about her career, which is really quite extraordinary from the projects of New York to one of the great stars of our time.

CABRERA: No kidding.

AXELROD: So, it was a great chat.

CABRERA: David Axelrod, thank you so much.

AXELROD: It was good to see you.

CABRERA: We look forward to your special episode tonight. Don't miss an all new Axe Files featuring Whoopi Goldberg tonight at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

And coming up in the Newsroom, in a new interview, actress Uma Thurman is accusing disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault. Why she says she's now breaking her silence. Up next.


[17:33:40] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Actress Uma Thurman this weekend saying Harvey Weinstein did attack her. She told "The New York Times" in a piece released today about several disturbing incidents with the one-time powerful movie producer, one of which got frighteningly physical.

Our senior media correspondent, Brian Stelter, is here. And also with us is pop culture commentator and anchor of "People TV," Lola Ogunnaike.

So, Brian, we have now known for months that Uma Thurman likely had a story to tell about her interactions with Harvey Weinstein, given they do have a history, especially in the Quentin Tarantino movies, but what are we learning about what she's now alleging?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT & CNN HOST, RELIABLE SOURCES: She said there were two physical assaults, what she called sexual attacks. She gave an interview to Maureen Dowd that will appear in tomorrow's "New York Times."

This is notable partly because of their past, the careers they had. But she had been interviewed on the red carpet a couple times between October when the scandal broke and now, and she avoided questions about Weinstein. She said, "I'll talk about this in a time and place of my choosing." You could tell she was angry, that she had something to say.

In this "New York Times" interview, she said she had some regrets. This happened to her in the 1990s. Weinstein went on to allegedly harass and assault women for decades after that point. She wondered, like many others, if she could have done more to stop him.

CABRERA: Now Weinstein, his camp at least responding, right?

[17:35:01] STELTER: Yes. His lawyers, his representatives have come out admitting there was some incident in London and Paris. We can put on the screen the statement denying a physical assault. It says, "Mr. Weinstein acknowledges making an awkward pass 25 years ago on Ms. Thurman in England after misreading her signals. This was after a flirtatious exchange in Paris after which he apologized and deeply regrets. However, her claims of being physically assaulted are untrue."

His camp says this is the first we have heard of this. Look after the photos of them. That's a pretty outrageous thing for the Weinstein camp to say.

CABRERA: In fact, I want to read that part of the statement as well, Brian. Let's read it together here. It says, "This is the first time we are hearing that she considered Mr. Weinstein an enemy and the pictures of their history tell a completely different story."

Again, talking about pictures that were released along with that statement, showing Weinstein and Uma Thurman posing together, and they were happy, at least looked friendly in the pictures.

Lola, what do you make of this defense?

LOLA OGUNNAIKE, POP CULTURE COMMENTATOR & ANCHOR, PEOPLE TV: I think the defense is reprehensible. I think anyone who understands how this industry works is you oftentimes have to work with people that you don't like, but you have to smile for the cameras. We all know that. The fact that these women were able to put on a brave face in spite of the fact that they had been sexually assaulted by this monster is a testament to their strength and not to the fact that Harvey Weinstein had a consensual relationship with any of these women.

CABRERA: It's hard to keep track now of just how many people are alleging sexual harassment, sexual abuse, Brian. In fact, today, we're learning of new allegations. New investigations into Harvey Weinstein, criminal investigations in the U.K.

STELTER: That's right. In London, a U.K. metropolitan police say in November they received complaint from one woman about two different alleged assaults by Harvey Weinstein. These dated back a number of years, so police are now investigating those. They revealed this for the first time today. But already, we knew there were criminal probes in London, Los Angeles, and New York. So this just adds to the list of accusers who have actually gone to the police. And so far, there's been no arrest and no indication of an imminent arrest, but you have three different investigations simultaneously against Harvey Weinstein right now. He's apparently still in rehab in Arizona. You have to think that these police investigators have a lot of evidence they're going through because they're interviewing so many alleged victims.

OGUNNAIKE: Keep in mind, Ana, just yesterday, it was revealed Halle Berry's former manager, who is currently Taraji P. Henson's manager, is accused by nine women of this sort of behavior.


OGUNNAIKE: This is an industry epidemic. These are not isolated incidents. This is a colossal problem that needs to be addressed. What makes me hopeful is women across the world are speaking out about

this, and not just prominent figures. RAINN, the Race Abuse Incident National Network, says the number of calls that organization received in November went up by 25 percent, and 30 percent in December.


OGUNNAIKE: So that means that women are feeling more comfortable, and men feeling more comfortable coming forward with things that have happened to them, as well as people who are around them. They're calling these hotlines as well and offering support or asking, how do I help a friend or a family member deal with things that have happens to them. We're seeing a trickle-down effect. And that is one of the silver linings here.

CABRERA: A trickle down in reporting, and also people facing accountability and consequences for their actions. I think of like the Kevin Spacey allegations and the fact that now "House of Cards" is going to happen without him. That's one of my favorite shows on Netflix.

STELTER: It went back in production this week with a bunch of new actors. You know, the show will probably be better than it was without him, but when you watch the new season, you're probably going to think of Kevin Spacey. There's going to be reminders of this ongoing "Me Too" movement for a long time.


STELTER: And it feels to me like we're still in the early innings.

OGUNNAIKE: We are. But again, donations to the organizations are up. Some donations are up as much as 40 percent, and some of these donations are coming in with #metoo. So I love that. That these people are not only coming forward, but people in support of these victims are coming forward with money to help others.

[17:39:18] CABRERA: All right. Guys, thank you both very much.

Lola, you're back with me in the next block.

We appreciate both of you.

Coming up, it's been almost four decades since Natalie Wood was found dead. Now, new witnesses are coming forward, leading investigators to declare this case a suspicious death. We'll have details straight ahead.


CABRERA: Welcome back. It is one of Hollywood's most enduring mysteries, what really happened to Natalie Wood. For nearly four decades, that question has fascinated the nation and beyond. And now new witness statements are reenergizing the investigation into her 1981 drowning. The actress, known for her role in "Westside Story" and "Rebel Without

a Cause," had been sailing on a yacht with her husband, Robert Wagner, and actor, Christopher Walken, when she went missing overnight. Her body was found the next morning floating in the ocean.

Her death at the age of 43 was initially ruled an accidental drowning. But in 2011, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department reopened the investigation. And in the years since then, investigators say they have received more than 100 tips. And now have separate witnesses who identified a man and a woman back then in 1981 arguing on the back of the yacht. Those witnesses do believe the voices belonged to Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner.

Now, here's what one investigator told CBS's "48 Hours" about Wagner.


UNIDENTIFIED CBS 48 HOURS HOST: Do you believe Natalie Wood was murdered?

UNIDENTIFIED INVESTIGATOR: I think it's suspicious enough to make us think that something happened.

UNIDENTIFIED CBS 48 HOURS HOST: Do you believe that Robert Wagner knows a lot more about what happened to his wife than he's ever said?

UNIDENTIFIED INVESTIGATOR: I think he absolutely does because he's the last one to see her.


[17:45:05] CABRERA: And Lola's back with us now.

Lola, what do you think about what is it about this case that has captured everybody's interest?

OGUNNAIKE: I think it's one of the biggest mysteries that Hollywood has ever witnessed. You have a star at the height of her career and her beauty and her glamour who is married to Robert Wagner, a huge television star. They were the golden couple. You think Liz Taylor, Richard Burton, their era's Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. So to have her die in these mysterious circumstances, also a woman who publicly declared she had a fear of water, dark water, and sea water, die has only compounded the mystery around her death. When you couple this epic mystery with sort of this foretelling of a possible tragic ending that she had had years earlier with the fact that she was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood of her generation, it just has made for a perfect recipe for there being enduring interest in the case.

CABRERA: It's interesting the fingers are pointing to her husband, Robert Wagner, who, at the time, after her death said, quote, "We were all so shattered by the loss." What do we know about their marriage?

OGUNNAIKE: What we do know about their marriage is that that night specifically, according to the captain who was on the yacht, he said they had an epic explosive argument and that he believed that it was alcohol fueled. So that is something that he has maintained since they called into the Coast Guard hours after she went missing. And he's maintained that. He is again saying that. And so it will be -- I'm interested to see whether these witnesses that come forward will be able to corroborate what the captain said then and continues to say now.

CABRERA: Let's listen to what he's saying in his own words.


DENNIS DAVERN, BOAT CAPTAIN: It was like a lot of physical activity going on in the State Room.


DAVERN: Well, just noises of, you know, movement in the State Room, and voices.


DAVERN: Yes. We necessarily really didn't lie. We just didn't tell everything. And it was agreed that what we spoke about between the three of us is that what we were going to tell the investigators.


CABRERA: So again, that's what he told the "Today Show" back in 2011.

Again, Christopher Walken was on this boat as well. Has he been able to put any of the mystery, puzzle pieces together?

OGUNNAIKE: That's interesting. We don't know what he has said, but he has spoken to investigators since 2011. Robert Wagner, on the other hand, who is now 88, has refused to speak to investigators. Christopher Walken has. Again, we don't know what he said, but he has spoken to investigators. Robert Wagner has refused.

CABRERA: Lola, did I say your name, right?

OGUNNAIKE: Ogunnaike.

CABRERA: Ogunnaike.


CABRERA: OK, thank you very much for coming on.

OGUNNAIKE: Thanks for having me on.

CABRERA: So nice to see you and meet you in person.

Well, tomorrow's Super Bowl could get very interesting because it's going to make history even before kickoff. We'll explain, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:52:31] CABRERA: Countdown to kickoff. Minneapolis rolling out the red carpet for tomorrow's Super Bowl. Far from a warm welcome for Patriots and Eagles fans. It's projected to be the coldest of all- time. The kickoff forecast, just three degrees.

CNN's Andy Scholes is braving the elements.

Andy, we just checked the weather there, and it's 15 degrees with a wind chill that makes it feel like a one-degree temperature right now. How are you holding up?

SCHOLES: That sounds about right, Ana. I tell you what. It stopped snowing. It was snowing all day. We got between one to three inches of snow on the ground here. That didn't stop any of the NFL fans here in Minneapolis from coming out and enjoying all of the festivities and fun things they have to do here in downtown Minneapolis. People trying to stay warm as much as possible.

And like you said, three degrees for the Super Bowl tomorrow. It's going to be the coldest Super Bowl ever. The game, of course, being played indoors. So the worry from officials is how these 70,000 fans are going to get into the stadium without freezing outside. And for the first time ever, they're going to allow a remote security checkpoint at the mall of America. You could actually go there if you have a ticket, go through a security checkpoint, pay 30 bucks and get a ride to the stadium to inside the security perimeter. That's a first for the Super Bowl -- Ana?

CABRERA: This match-up is being billed as a true David versus Goliath, not just the two teams, but also the two quarterbacks.

SCHOLES: Yes, that's right. The experience gap between Tom Brady and Nick Foles really couldn't be larger. Of course, Tom Brady, going to the Super Bowl is nothing new for him. This is going to be his eighth trip. Trying to win his sixth. No other NFL player in history has ever won six Super Bowls. Nick Foles, on the other hand, a backup quarterback, wasn't expecting to be playing at this point in the season, and he's a guy who actually almost walked away from the game of football a few years ago. Look where he is now, starting for the Eagles. Tom Brady actually has more wins and touchdown passes in the playoffs than Nick Foles has for his entire career. So it's definitely a big experience gap when it comes to the Super Bowl. But I'll tell you what. Nick Foles could be forever a hero in the city of Philadelphia if he's able to deliver their first Super Bowl championship tomorrow.

CABRERA: You know, coming from Colorado, I've always been a huge Denver Broncos fan. I'm all about the underdog in this upcoming game.

Andy Scholes, where is your hat?

[17:55:02] SCHOLES: So I've been inside all day, and I've only been running out for these live shots, so I haven't been wearing a hat. I wanted to make sure my TV hair stayed in place.

CABRERA: I was going to say, your hair looks very nice. Andy Scholes, thank you very much, sir. Good to see you.

SCHOLES: All right.

CABRERA: That's going to do it for us. I'm Ana Cabrera, in New York. I'll be back one hour -- actually, two hours from now, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

We've got "SMERCONISH" next, followed by "THE AXE FILES." See you later.


[18:00:00] MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST: I'm Michael Smerconish, coming to you from the home city of the NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles. We welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world.

Well, after weeks of drum rolls, the notorious Devin Nunes memo is out. It aims to discredit the infamous Steele dossier -