Return to Transcripts main page


Former President George H.W. Bush in Intensive Care; White House Won't Rule Out Pardon for Cohen; Conway's Husband has Criticized President on Twitter; 10 Dead, 15 Injured after Van Plows into Pedestrians in Toronto; Four Shot and Killed at a Waffle House in Nashville, Man Wrestled Gun Away from Shooter. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired April 23, 2018 - 21:00   ET


[21:02:09] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We're following breaking news out of Houston, Texas tonight, the 41st President of the United States, George H.W. Bush, is in the hospital in the ICU battling a serious infection. Just a few days ago, obviously the world joined him in paying final respect to First Lady Barbara Bush. And tonight we're certainly wishing the former president the best.

We begin the hour, CNN Special Correspondent, Jamie Gangel, who joins me here in Washington. What is the latest that you've heard?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So we've heard that he is responding to medication. Just to go back to what happened, Saturday night after the funeral, I'm told he was doing well, went out to dinner with his family. Then Sunday morning there was a crisis and he had an infection and there was sepsis, which is very dangerous when you're his age, 93, suffering from Parkinson's. Obviously he's been in fragile health for quite some time, and they rushed him to Houston methodist, a great hospital. He was put in the ICU, put on antibiotics and other liquids. But I'm told that Sunday was a very rough day, that twice his blood pressure dropped, and they really didn't know whether he was going to make it, that he was struggling. But today I'm told he's stabilized and they hope he's turning the corner.

COOPER: Obviously, I mean to go through an experience like the funeral and the wake where, you know, members of the public were coming and the former president really wanted to be there to shake everybody's hand.

GANGEL: Right. You know, we saw those pictures on Friday of him greeting the public. He didn't have to do that. No one expected him to do it. He had seen the video and he said, I want to go down there. And he stayed and stayed. He's someone who likes to do the right thing and gracious, and it was that. But no question, this has been the most emotional, heartbreaking weekend for him. They've been married for 73 years, and I'm sure that in addition to the infection, that took a toll.

COOPER: Yes. It's hard to imagine the former president without the former first lady. You told me something right before we went on the air, and I just want the folks at home to hear it because it's really so moving about -- you had talked the night that Barbara Bush died about her relationship with the secret service and the respect that the secret -- really, that it was a two-way street, the respect that both had for each other. You have a report of actually what the secret service did with Barbara Bush, that they were with her the night she died.

GANGEL: Right. So, you know, one of the things that people may remember about the Bushes is they didn't go out on Christmas or on holidays. And they did that so that the secret service could be with their families. They were very respectful, and they had a great relationship with them. And, in fact, when she was lying there, those were two secret service agents standing on either side, and the night she passed, the U.S. Secret Service, they kept an agent with her all night, and when she passed at sunrise, they sent out over the airwaves, meaning the secret service airwaves, "tranquility," which was her secret service name, has arrived at her final destination.

[21:05:25] COOPER: That's how they alerted the other secret service agents that she had passed.

GANGEL: Correct. Correct.

COOPER: Extraordinary. Is it clear how many immediate family members are still in Houston? Obviously the whole family gathered.

GANGEL: Right. So some of them had gone home, I think, before this all happened. I'm told that Dora Bush, their daughter, is there, and Neil Bush lives in Houston, so there is still family around.

COOPER: Jamie, stick around. I want to bring in the rest of the panel, Gloria Borger, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, and David Gergen as well.

Sanjay, obviously sepsis is very serious particularly in somebody at this age. The president's offices, he is responding and appears to be recovering. What does that tell you?

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they have identified most likely what caused this sepsis. Often it's an infection that can start off as even a minor infection from the skin or a urinary tract infection and then spread to the rest of the body into the blood. When you're giving antibiotics, you're obviously trying to clear this infection.

You also have to make sure some of these antibiotics are pretty powerful, that you don't cause problems to some of the other organs, the heart, the lungs, the kidneys. So that's -- it's a fine balance right now that's probably going on. The fact that he's responding, obviously a very good sign, but, you know, he's 93 years old, he has these underlying medical conditions, he's had this tough week, his immune system may have been compromised a bit over this past week. That can happen after a big loss like this, so all of this has to be taken into account.

And Anderson, these aren't things that change in minutes. The sort of progress he'll make will be measured more in days and weeks. COOPER: Gloria, we've been talking a lot this past week about the strength of these two, the strength of President Bush Sr. in particular. I mean, it's hard to imagine what it is like for somebody to lose the love of their life, somebody they met -- he met her when she was 16 years old. He was still in high school and spent their entire lives together.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. It's an amazing story, and I know, you know, from reading Jon Meacham's great book about George H.W. Bush, the one word he hated to use, I'm sure you know this, Jamie, is the L word, the legacy word. But what I saw at that funeral was his legacy. His family, his close family, his grandsons, his granddaughters, his great-grandchildren, and his own children. And that's his legacy in addition to his presidency.

And so that's something that I kind of thought of while I was watching all of this, even though he didn't like to talk about it, and Barbara Bush didn't like to talk about it. This is who they were. They were the embodiment of kind of an American dynasty, which we maybe see once a generation.

COOPER: David, I mean President Bush has been battling these health challenges for years. There is no reason to believe he isn't still putting up a fight tonight. I think Jamie was saying in the last hour that he talking about -- trying to get a kind of Kennebunkport, he has events that he wants to go to coming up in the weeks ahead?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: One of the characteristics his family often talks about is his will to live, Anderson. It goes all the way back to his early years when he was the youngest combat pilot shot out of the skies and very nearly died in the pacific. And you saw that more recently, a few years ago, one of his sons told me -- I think it was George W., that his dad had been on his deathbed, doctors thought he would not make it, and he rallied himself. He just had this fierce impulse, desire to live, the will, and he willed himself back into life, according to the son. And they all, the family, were just stunned by how he did that. So he's putting up a fight. He will put up a fight. I know he's lonely without Barbara, but he does have this inner strength.

COOPER: You know, Jamie, David was referencing his time during World War II. I mean, just reading about his exploits during the war, you know, his plane badly hit, he still delivers the payload of bombs in this really difficult battle in the pacific. He parachutes out along with one other person. That person's parachute didn't open. He survives on a raft being circled by aircraft to protect him until a submarine actually picks him up.

GANGEL: Right. Actually, two of his crewmen didn't survive, and he always felt tremendous guilt about that. And I think actually at the funeral they talked about how he would say, why did I survive? Why did I survive? And they talked in the funeral that he was told he survived because of Barbara Bush. He survived to come back and do all of that.

[21:10:13] But I can't tell you the number of times -- even though he's been in and out of the hospital and struggling, that he said, I'm going to 2live to be 102. I'm going to live to be 105. But I do think that Barbara Bush's passing has to take a toll after 73 years together, meeting at 16.

COOPER: It's incomprehensible to think about that loss.

GANGEL: Their live together.

COOPER: Yes. Really extraordinary.

Sanjay, you mentioned something last hour, broken heart syndrome. I think a lot of people are probably thinking about that tonight upon hearing this news, whether someone who does loss the love of his life, it could be in a weakened state from actually -- from that that loss?

GUPTA: Yes. I mean, there is such a thing, a broken heart syndrome, and typically obviously it affects the heart more, and it's the sort of release of chemicals in response to this loss that can almost seem like the heart's been affected, even seem like a heart attack maybe not with the symptoms. But really it can be quite debilitating on the heart.

It can also be an impact on the immune system. So, again, you could have an infection that may have otherwise not been that big a deal, something that his body would have cleared on its own, but if your immunity is down in part because of age, in part because of other illnesses, in part because of this significant loss, that could be a tangible effect of what he's experienced this past week, having this weakened immune system, and that can lead to the sepsis. So it's quite possible, Anderson.

COOPER: We certainly wish him peace and strength in the days ahead and a speedy recovery.

Much more ahead, including tonight the question of whether the President is sending a message to his personal attorney, the man who reportedly could flip on him, that a pardon could be coming. That's next.


COOPER: With reporting over the weekend that the President's personal Attorney and Mr. Fixer, Michael Cohen could flip, the President took action on Twitter, he lashed out at a reporter. Someone he knows quite well and he's talked to frequently over the years. Keep that in minds as I read the tweet, "The New York Times and a third-rate reporter named Maggie Haberman, known as a Crooked H Flunkie, who I don't speak to and have nothing to do with, are going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will flip." And yes, again he knows Maggie Haberman, their conversations have made headline time and time again, many headlines, in time the headline from the White House today was that a pardon from Michael Cohen is not off the table.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) [21:15:24] JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wanted to ask you a question, sort of following up on what you were asked this morning about Michael Cohen. It was noticed by some that you didn't close the door one way or the other on the President pardoning Michael Cohen. What is your read on that right now?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's hard to close the door on something that hasn't taken place. I don't like to discuss or comment on hypothetical situations that may or may not ever happen. I would refer you to personal attorneys to comment on anything specific regarding that case, but we don't have anything at this point.


COOPER: We do, however -- joining us are Kirsten Powers, Jason Miller, Gloria Borger, Carrie Cordero, David Urban, And Bakari Sellers.

Carrie, let me just start with you, just from a legal standpoint, the President's power to pardon is pretty absolute.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is. So executive power for the President, a pardon is one of the fundamental executive powers that he has, he has wide discussion over what he can pardon for. And what's interesting about this through is that, we don't even know what Michael Cohen might be charged with.

COOPER: Well, if he's charged at all. We should point out he hasn't been charged --

CORDERO: He hasn't been charged.

COOPER: But there's no -- we had no idea.

CORDERO: Nobody might be charged yet. And so -- so there is a little bit of sort of anticipation of going towards the pardon power.

COOPER: But if somebody -- the only limit, and correct me if I'm wrong here, on a President's pardoning power is if it's done in order to buy somebody's silence, correct, or if there is a deal?

CORDERO: Well, they're really -- I mean, there is nowhere where that specifically spelled out.


CORDERO: I mean, what we would be talking about would be, what would be an abusive use of constitutional authority. So it really gets to sort of the President's executive, fundamental authorities, and would a use of a pardon in some way to buy someone's silence or to derail an investigation or to obstruct, would that be --

COOPER: Which other presidents have been charged -- or accused of in the past, but again it's pretty difficult to prove. CORDERO: The question would that be an abusive use of his constitutional authority? And that's a very broad fundamental question.

COOPER: David, I mean it's interesting, the article that got the President so upset is clearly this article that Maggie Haberman wrote, which is was -- actually a fascinating article about the relationship between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump when he was a civilian, and it painted, based on numerous sources, a pretty devastating picture of how Donald Trump had treated Michael Cohen publicly and privately over the years.

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I'm not quite sure that -- you know, how accurate that is. Its source, you know, Roger Stone is fairly close to the President, had some not so kind things to say about Michael Cohen. But everybody is jumping the gun here in terms of -- what's in the black box? No one knows what's in the black box yet. I think we need to wait and see.

And I do think there is one limitation of President's authority to pardon. You can't pardon for impeachment. It's actually listed in the constitution, enumerated there. So -- but I find it curious that the FBI, the Department of Justice can squeeze somebody, and threaten them with lifelong imprisonment in order to get them to testify against somebody. That's not seen as somehow problem-some.

COOPER: Wait a minute. Isn't this done --


COOPER: Have you just discovered this?

URBAN: No, I'm not talking about Michael Cohen's case, I'm just saying in general. I think that -- this should give people pause to think that they could take you in, lock you up for a weekend and then say, how would you like to spend 27 years in here? If not, why don't you tell something about Gloria?

COOPER: Right. But I mean --


URBAN: They're inclined to say something.

COOPER: They did that to Sammy the Bull. And nobody seem --

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is the normal course of business for the FBI and federal prosecution.

URBAN: I don't say that.

SELLERS: This is not anything new. And just to throw this out, you remember Richard Nixon was pardoned before he was charged with any crimes. He was pardoned by Gerald Ford. So you don't have to be charged with the crime before you were pardon. So he can --

BORGER: He was indicted. Wasn't he indicted --

SELLERS: Correct. Correct. And so you can indict prior to any charges are rendered, so we just need to keep that in mind. But the fact is innocent people don't flip. I mean, let's just throw that out there. I mean, we can talk about the problems that Michael Cohen has. This is not a black box. This is wire fraud. This is mail fraud. This is federal election commission violation.

URBAN: Bakari, I'll take converse of you on that point, right?

SELLERS: Which part?

URBAN: Don't flip, if the Department of Justice says, we're going to bankrupt you, we're going to keep you tied up.

SELLERS: That's not what they say thought.

URBAN: Listen, the government always has more money.

SELLERS: That's not what they say though.

URBAN: Microsoft found that out.

BORGER: So what we know is from our reporting that the President is apoplectic about that search warrant, in which five paragraphs were devoted to the President. Now, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general apparently had a meeting with the President last Friday in which he said, you're not in any jeopardy, which kind of surprise me.

[21:20:01] SELLERS: He said you're not a target?

BORGER: Right. But, you know, same thing, you're not in jeopardy. And so that calmed down the President, I'm told, to a certain degree. Except that these things move, they change.

COOPER: You can become a target.

BORGER: You can become a target, and they got a lot of stuff from Michael Cohen over the years, and he doesn't know what's in there. And yes, they had an up again, down again relationship, they fought all the time, and he went to Michael Cohen to fix things. Usually when you go to someone to fix things, they're not great things that need to be fixed. They're things that haven't gone so well for you, and I think that's what worries the President.

COOPER: Kirsten?

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: They're not necessarily illegal.

BORGER: Right.

POWERS: But we also don't know whether they even need him, right? They've already gotten all of this information from his office, and so the question is even if he would like to flip, do they even need him to flip? Is that even something that's on the table? JASON MILLER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, you know, to that point, I mean, Michael Cohen still has not been charged with anything.

BORGER: That's right.

MILLER: He still has not been convicted of anything.

COOPER: Absolutely.

POWERS: Exactly.

MILLER: And so I think we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves here. But also even to the whole point of --

BORGER: He's worried.

MILLER: But even to the point of -- well, of course, if you have someone, you know, show up at your place with a warrant, obviously it's probably not the best day. But the important thing here is the fact that since Rosenstein sent this to the southern district of New York and did not have Mueller's team go and follow up on this, themselves, that means it was outside of the scope of anything to do with the President or with Mueller's investigation.

So if you're Trump supporter, you should be happy with that news, by seeing that. But I think there's one other thing -- I think we're a little -- it's been a little overhyped on the pardoning front. Let's not forget that President Obama either pardoned or commuted the sentences of almost 2,000 people, including folks like Chelsea Manning, even President Clinton pardon or commuted upwards a 500 people. Let's -- you know Roger Clinton, Marc Rich --


MILLER: But I'm saying that the whole issues --

POWERS: There's a process though --

COOPER: Lots of Presidents pardon. The question is timing, I mean, is it a coincidence --


POWERS: Yes, whether you go through the DOJ process and also whether you personally benefit from it. I mean, he wasn't -- these people weren't -- this in no way impacted whether someone was investigating him. I mean, these were people that he felt their sentences should be commuted and I think he was right. But you just can't put it in the same basket as this.

MILLER: You can make it an issue with some of the folks, whether it would be Susan McDougal or Marc Rich, I mean there was --

BORGER: There was.

POWERS: Yes. People did. I mean, that's the thing. I think Bill Clinton, but you were just talking about Barack Obama.

MILLER: Barack Obama.

POWERS: And none of the people that he commuted, there was no benefit.

URBAN: Yes, but one was convicted of espionage. That's pretty bad stuff.

BORGER: But how about a --

COOPER: But again, he wasn't personally involved in that. I mean, this is a question of pardoning someone who you are personally involved with.

SELLERS: Low-level drug offenders for the most part, in jail wrongfully for long periods of time for low-level drug offenses. So I mean, I love making it cloudy and I love spinning things. I mean, that was just the hell of a way to spin that. But the fact of the matter is these people are in the President's personal cycle and he has a personal benefit or can gain personally from pardoning.

COOPER: Let's take a quick break. A lot more ahead tonight, the White House scrambling to explain EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite all the ethics allegations against him, is doing a great job.


[21:26:43] COOPER: Keeping them honest now on a member of the Trump administration who is fair to say, a familiar name in segments like these, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. I want to play a quick sound bite about him from a White House official over the weekend.


MARC SHORT, WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: There is much this administration has been doing to help drain the swamp, including setting all sorts of new restrictions upon employees and the revolving door between lobbyists that work in this administration. There is more work we can do, Hallie (ph). We will accept that. But I think Scott Pruitt's doing a great job and we look forward to keeping him there as EPA administrator.


COOPER: Doing a great job, he said, draining the swamp, especially when it comes to lobbyist in the administration.

Keep them honest, Marc Short's words came just a day after spokesman for the lobbyist, J. Steven Hart confirmed on Saturday that Hart met with Pruitt. Hart's wife, you'll remember, rented Pruitt a room in Washington in a bargain price, $50 a night, not to worry, Pruitt maintained that he had never met with Hart, that Hart had not lobbied Pruitt. Pruitt, you'll recall has also come under fired for numerous first class flights, his large and enormous security detail, the $43,000 secure phone booth he ordered up and more. Today he got less than a ringing vote of confidence from the White House.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There have been a number of documented cases in the press recently of EPA Administrator Pruitt at least appearing to be dishonest about requesting raises for aides, about his relationship with a lobbyist who had business before the EPA (INAUDIBLE). Is the White House concerned at all about this pattern? And is there concern about him testifying before Congress on Thursday, as scheduled, where these issues are probably going to come up?

SANDERS: We're continuing to review a number of the reports that you mentioned, and we'll let you know if we have any changes on that front.


And so will we. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison.

Congressman Ellison, every week there does seem to be new ethics concern raised about Pruitt. Do you think he should resign?

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: Yes, Scott Pruitt should resign. He's under investigation for as many as 10 different sorts of ethical lapses, of having -- gaining of discounted place from the lobbyist who has business before your agency to me alone is enough. But he's also spent lavishly, $43,000 for a secure booth so he can have conversations that he apparently doesn't want anyone else to hear, I wonder he wants to excessive amounts of security expenditures and this thing where he gave aides extra money that was intended to go to scientists, another particularly troubling abuse. But the real abuse is those things plus the fact that he is an incredibly bad EPA administrator. He is attacking the clean power plant. He's trying to diminish and decrease fuel standards on cars. He's basically --

COOPER: Those are things the President supports, so he is successfully executing the President's agenda, whether you totally disagree with that agenda?

ELLISON: I think you have to be -- I think you're right. The President does want to repeal the clean power plan, but in my view, those scandalous things really are sort of a sign of a larger problem. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, if you think that government is bad, government is no good and you want to shrink it, is one of the benefits of shrinking it mean that the people who you're supposed to regulate will not be regulated as intensely? In Scott Pruitt's case, I suspect that is the case.

[21:30:06] COOPER: The White House today said that they are, "continuing" to review a number of the reports on Pruitt but he's done a, "good job" of implementing the president's policies. Again, I mean, is their response a rational one to you?

ELLISON: In my opinion, it's a ridiculous response, but I will tell you this. It wasn't the ringing endorsement that I've thought I heard before. I mean, it seems like there may be a peeling away. I didn't hear the spokesperson for the White House say great job. They said, well, we're looking at it. And who knows, I mean, things happen quick coming out of the White House, but I'm sure that Democrats and even some Republicans will be ready to ask Mr. Pruitt some questions to hold him accountable and discharge their job around oversight. He's got a lot of explaining to do.

COOPER: Earlier today, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short was asked about the difference between this situation with Pruitt and the firing of Tom Price. He said, that "There were several reasons why Price partnership wasn't working, the Pruitt is both working and lots of fronts. He's basically saying since it is working there is no reason to fire him?

ELLISON: Yes. Well, that's too bad, because what they're saying they're -- according to Short, anyway, they're willing to ignore clear ethical lapses and corruption on behalf of Pruitt.

Now, you know, I don't know what Short has in mind, but I can tell you this, when you have an administrator that appears to be getting the benefit from a lobbyist, that it has business in front of his agency of lower housing, that is -- that should be troublesome.

Now, I don't know if that's just sticking up for your friends or what, but I think that the Huckabee Sanders comment probably is accurate in that they're looking at it because, you know, the Trump administration, as you well know, already has a whole lot of things they have to explain. Do they really need to explain Pruitt's business as well? So that's something they've got to take into consideration. But I will tell you again, Anderson, for me the big scandal is, you know, the larger question of abandoning environmental protection, actively working with polluters to make life easier and more profitable for them. That is the big scandal, in my opinion.

COOPER: Congressman Ellison, I appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Kellyanne Conway's husband has been critical of the Trump administration Twitter. CNN's Dana Bash asked her about that, her response and the headlines of it, next.


[21:36:19] COOPER: Very quickly, some other breaking news tonight concerning administration personnel, CNN has learned the Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee are raising concerns about the allegations involving Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, the President's 2choice to lead the Department of Veteran Affairs. What we do not yet know is what those allegations actually are.

Separately, Kellyanne Conway's husband is having people talking about his Twitter feed, which is sometimes critical for the President. One example last months, CNN Kaitlan Collins tweeted about the President saying one thing and doing another and George Conway retweeted it saying, "So true, that's absurd." He since deleted that reply but he is continued retweeting things that are critical to the administration. CNN Dana Bash asked Kellyanne Conway about that. Take a look at just some of the exchange.


KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: He writes a lot of things that are also supportive and he writes a lot of things about corgis, and the Philadelphia Eagles, and sports, too.

It's fascinating to me that CNN would go there but it's very good for the whole world to have just witnessed. That is now fair --


CONWAY: Excuse me, that is now fair game what people's -- how people's spouses and significant others may differ with them.

BASH: Kellyanne, here was my whole point in this --

CONWAY: It's hard for whom?

BASH: -- is that you are a professional working for the President of the United States and your husband is a very well-respected lawyer. And my point is, is that we don't often see -- in fact, I don't remember the last time we saw somebody working for the president in a high-profile position when their spouse is saying critical things about them.

That is all. That is all.

CONWAY: Well, that, A, is not true. There are other family members whose people who work at the White House who certainly don't support the president privately and publicly. But I will tell you this. And there are people who have been in his administration who worked for Democrats or gave money to Democrats. But all that aside, that really is meant to divert attention from, again, the big issues that America cares about.


COOPER: I'm back now with the panel. Kirsten, Kellyanne Conway said that there has been a different standard for me than other people. Do you think that's true?

POWERS: Well, it's interesting she then later said that it wasn't a gender standard. So I'm sort of a loss of what's standard that everyone in the world has just single out Kellyanne Conway, be upon her that does make any sense.

Look, the question was totally fair. It was clearly asked in a very lighthearted way. Kellyanne knows Dana, just like everybody here does, as a very nice, fair reporter. I mean, the idea that she of all people would be trying to embarrass her or humiliate her is just absurd. Her husband is not just her husband. He's a very well-known person in politics. He's very influential. So it's not just some lobbyist sitting at home, tweeting at somebody who actually is in the Republican Party expressing that he doesn't seem that happy about Donald Trump. So it seems like a totally fair question and she could have just said, look, we have different feelings about it, and moved on.

BORGER: Yes, that's what -- you know, I would have thought that if you were prepping her for that interview, that perhaps she would have had an answer for that which would be just the answer you're talking about, which is, we're all adults here. I don't agree with my husband all the time. I know in my family I don't. And I don't agree with my husband all the time. We have different opinions. He's entitled to his. I'm entitled to mine, and just because I work in the White House does not mean my husband loses his right to express himself, period. And maybe I wish he wouldn't do it that publicly but he's a grown man and that's that.

MILLER: Well, I think if I can jump in I think from Kellyanne's perspective, or at least I could see where this would be -- you know, I went back and watched the interstate view live and went back and watched it a second time. Where were -- I'm sure Dana would argue one question about Michael Cohen, I'm sure Kellyanne would argue there four or five about Michael Cohen, then it went to drunk and drag that comments, more his tweets about former Director Comey and then finally into her husband's tweets.

[21:40:02] So at which point -- if I'm Kellyanne and I'm ostensibly coming on to talk about the President's agenda and we've gone through that series, and other than Kellyanne trying to horn in the work that she is doing on opioids or about the President's effort on North Korea, I'd probably pretty frustrated too. I think one of the things, and Kirsten is absolutely right, Dana is one of the fairest and absolutely honest reporters out there.

BORGER: Absolutely.

MILLER: To just we're very clear. She is --

BORGER: And she has known Kellyanne for years, yes.

MILLER: Exactly.


MILLER: You know, I think different people have different fault lines, and Dana questioned -- the word "husband" was mentioned several times in that initial question. You know, I could see maybe Kellyanne, just -- it was at the culmination of the interview, where she didn't get a chance to talk about any of the things that she wanted to get and talk about --

POWERS: Why didn't she use time she was ramping in that evening --


MILLER: Because that was announced as the final question.

POWERS: Why couldn't she just say, hey I'm going to take the rest of the time and talk about opioids or whatever --

MILLER: Because she would have been --

POWERS: She just went on this insane rant.

MILLER: Because she would have been cut off, but it was announced as the final question and it went into her husband's tweet. And so I would be frustrated, too. I mean no questions on North Korea, no questions on Macron's visit or Merkel.

CORDERO: I have a little bit of a different take on this that I find myself actually sympathizing with Kellyanne a little bit on this one, which is that the things that her husband is doing, he's just tweeting. He's not a litigator litigating with one of the private law firms against the administration's travel ban. He's not -- he doesn't have any kind of conflict in a substantive way.

BORGER: Right.

CORDERO: And so while you all may be right as far as sort of what her reaction was in the actual interview, and I leave that to others, from a substantive point of view, sort of being in the legal community, there is not really anything he's doing that is other than speaking about something.

BORGER: And why not say that?

CORDERO: And so what I do worry about it and where I have been critical of the administration and of the President as a campaigner and President, is that he has brought spouses into things. On the campaign trail, he launched attacks at spouses, he launched attacks at people's family members, and so I do worry that at a trend towards lowering the bar, towards bringing in people's spouses or family members when there really isn't anything substantive that he's doing in a way that would be -- raise a conflict issue.

POWERS: He is a person of influence on the right, that's the point. He's not just some random person. And I think when you talk about attacking people, certainly, who would disagree with that? But Dana wasn't attacking. It was a very simple question. I think if David Axelrod's wife, if she was working in politics, and she was tweeting, I could see someone saying to him --

COOPER: Isn't he up for a position in the White House?


CORDERO: Interesting, working in Washington I mean, and I don't mean to interrupt, but working in Washington, I mean there are many people who work in common circles. And I just think that there does need to be a caution about.

SELLERS: I agree with that. I've always said in politics growing up in South Carolina, you don't talk about going to church and you don't talk about people's families, right, and where they send their kids to school like there are certain boundaries. However, this President has no boundaries. And so for the White House all of a sudden to come out and say, oh, my god, this is off limits and kind of take this snowflake mantra is ironic. It's true essence of -- this is the same man who said that Ted Cruz's father was part of the assassination attempt on JFK. This is the same man who called Heidi Cruz ugly. Then they trotted out all Bill Clinton's accusers they bring that on us, an hour before the debate. So, you know --

COOPER: David, and then -- quickly.

URBAN: Look, I say they're both really fine women. I think it's a tempest in a teapot. Kellyanne is doing a great job for the President. Dana is a true professional. I think it's -- this let it go and talk about something else in this --

COOPER: There is breaking news to bring you next from Toronto where authorities are sourcing for answers after mass killing, involving a rental van. Later, you'll meet a hero, plain and simple. A guy who confronted a gunman put a stop to the bloodshed.


[21:48:09] COOPER: The death toll is rising tonight at Toronto even aftershock, the questions grow. A driver used a ranted van as a weapon of mass murder today. At least 10 have now died, others are very badly injured. CNN's Alex Marquardt joins us now from Toronto. What's the latest, Alex?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson, we've gotten more details from federal local authorities, we spoke with the press just a short time ago. As you just mentioned, the death toll has gone up by one, from nine to 10. We understand there is still some 15 wounded with injuries ranging from critical and serious to a little bit less.

Now, we are also getting more details about the alleged attacker himself from investigators. They say he is a 25-year-old male from Richmond Hill, which is about half an hour from where I'm standing here in Toronto. We do have his name, Anderson, as you know. We are not reporting that name.

And we're also getting a bit more sense of how this attack took place. It lasted some 26 minutes, the alleged attacker at 1:26 in the afternoon. It was a beautiful sunny day, warm day here in Toronto. People were walking up and down Young Street. Anderson, this is one of the busiest streets in all of Canada. People going to and from work, to and from lunches, that's when the attacker in the van, in this white Rented Ryder Van, hopped up onto the curb and started driving southbound, so straight towards us here on the sidewalk, plowing into people.

The witnesses say it was a nightmare, it was pandemonium. He was driving some 40 or 50 miles an hour. Then there was a very dramatic scene at 1:00 p.m. when the police managed to corner the attacker. There was a dramatic standup, which we're going to show you in just a few seconds, between the police and the attacker, the attacker was pointing something at the police claiming to have a gun. The police were there, guns drawn, ordered him to get on the floor. Take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, get down! Get down!



[21:50:09] MARQUARDT: So a very dramatic moment there, which ended without any shots being fired, the Toronto police should be commanded further restraint. They said that the whole arrest happened without incident, that 25-year-old male, Anderson, now in custody.

COOPER: Yes. Clearly it looked like that guy was trying to provoke them to be shot and look like -- I mean, he kept reaching his hand at backpack and then drawing it out as if he was throwing a weapon out. What are you learning about any possible motive?

MARQUARDT: Right. We see a lot of incidents of course where people have gotten shot for far less. As it turns out, the police said that he did not have a weapon on him.

And motive is the real question. There has been some speculation that he wanted to die in what's called suicide by cop. That has not been confirmed. What the police are seeing is that right now, it does not look like this is a terror attack. They said, this was no threat to national security. They haven't seen any other threats in the works, they have not, Anderson, raised the terror threat level tonight opinion.

COOPER: All right, Alex Marquardt, thanks.

Tragedy also in Tennessee, tonight, where four families are grieving but also remarkable story of lives saved and hero, four people are under the age of 30 shot and killed at the Waffle House after a day long manhunt. The suspect's in custody. We hear more from the man who risked his own life to wrestle the gun away from the shooter we play some of it in the last hour. We want to run more right now because we think James Shaw Jr. simply someone you should hear from because he is a hero.

COOPER: Do you have combat for anything? Have you been in a situation at all like this where someone was firing?

JAMES SHAW JR., WRESTLED GUN AWAY FROM SHOOTER: No. I've never been in the situation where people have been shooting at me. I've actually don't have any combat training either.

COOPER: How long do you think you were tussling with him?

SHAW: I was probably tussling, that's kind of tough. Everything was kind of like a blur, so I assume maybe a minute, maybe two minutes, but if you could imagine, I mean, I was using full strength. And he was probably using his full strength to take the gun from me.

COOPER: Was he saying anything?

SHAW: It was slight cuss words. It was nothing really derogatory other than it was cuss words because he was upset that I was trying to take the gun. I was trying to live. And that's all I could say, all I was trying to do was live and, you know.

COOPER: And then, you get the gun from him, then what happened?

SHAW: So when I took the gun, I took the gun up above my head like this, I kind of raised it up and took it up above my head. And then, after I got the gun from him, I threw it as far as I could.

COOPER: You know, there's some people who have asked if this could have been a racially motivated incident. If that was in his mind, I'm just wondering, you said, he was using cuss words, was he using racial inappropriate racial words or just swear words.

SHAW: As far as I know, it was just swear words. All of it was a blur. Like, all of it was a blur.

COOPER: Did he say anything that gave you an idea of why he was doing this? Why he picked that place, why -- what was in his mind?

SHAW: He didn't say anything. He was just the -- just the cuss words, that was all the thing that I was hearing, and I really wasn't even -- I really tuned that out, I really wasn't worried about anything. The only thing I was thinking about is maybe if he had a handgun in his jacket or maybe if he had a knife or something. But I would have been at that point in time, how hopped up I was, and hyper, I would have been -- you know, I think I could have took a stabbing probably, and kept going. Because I was --

COOPER: Your adrenaline was pumping?

SHAW: Yes, I was -- yes, my adrenaline was really pumping really fast. So I was just ready to get out of there.

COOPER: I heard you went to church after this happened, you have a lot to be thankful for?

SHAW: Yes, sir. I went to church. I just wanted to, you know, that day was already full with destruction and grief and stuff that night. So I went to church just to persevere and process it. And get the word and, you know, just try to get some enjoyment out of it and it worked, I have family there. I have some paternal brothers there.

A lot of support, I have one of my best friends there and my best friend actually that was at the Waffle House with me came to my church, and it definitely helped, I prayed for the victims that were there. The ones that passed, and the ones that were just there and I was happy that I went.

COOPER: I heard you also went to the hospital to visit some people?

SHAW: Yes. I went to the hospital today and I visited two of the young ladies that were in critical condition. They both remembered me. I remember me. Specifically the last girl I definitely remember, I remember her -- her gun wound, maybe the most, because she was right beside where I was tussling, and fighting with the guy. And she was very severely injured. Graphically, to her lower leg.

[21:55:26] COOPER: Thank you so much for what you did, in talking to us tonight.

SHAW: All right.

COOPER: Coming up, a new royal baby arrives on the scene, a third child for William and Kate details ahead.


COOPER: It's another boy for William and Kate. Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William welcomed their third child today. A son, who is now fifth in line to the British throne, the palace said, the new royal son weighed in at 8 pounds, seven ounces, that's 3.8 kilograms. The rest of the world and that mom and baby are doing well. The duchess had the baby at 11:00 a.m., and then managed to leave the hospital this evening by 6:00, the baby's big brother Prince George is four years old, his sister Princess Charlotte is two. We don't know the new baby's name yet. In the case of George and Charlotte, the couple announced the name a couple days after they were born.

That's it for us. Thanks for watching. Time to hand it over to Don Lemon, "CNN TONIGHT" starts right now.