Return to Transcripts main page


President Trump's Anger Over The Russia Investigation Boiling Over Now On Twitter; Very Emotional Service After Ten Students And Teachers Were Gunned Down At A Texas High School; Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 20, 2018 - 16:00   ET


[16:00:08] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All Right. Be sure to watch an all-new episode of "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA" tonight at 10:00 p.m. right here on CNN.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WHITFIELD: All right. Hello, again. And thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We are following breaking news. President Trump's anger over the Russia investigation boiling over now on twitter. His latest tweet saying I here demand and will do so officially tomorrow that the department of justice look into whether or not the FBI, DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for political purposes and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama administration. And that's just one of the many tweets the President fired off today unleashing his frustration with the quote "witch-hunt Russia probe" just after the investigation hits its one- year mark now.

Let's get to CNN's Ryan Nobles live for us at the White House to put this into context -- Ryan.

RYAN NOBLES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, to be clear, we don't know exactly what the President is asking for in that tweet this morning where he said that he is going to officially demand that the justice department look into whether or not the FBI was infiltrating his campaign as he puts it for political reasons. But this does show a new level of frustration by President Trump as it relates to the Robert Mueller investigation, which has now been going on for more than a year. Of course, from what we understand, there was an informant that was working with the FBI, that was attempting to make connections with people from the Trump campaign.

But it is important to point out that our reporting was that this person was not embedded in the campaign, was not a part of the campaign, but was someone hoping to glean information. That's not stopped President Trump from trying to make connections between this attempt by the FBI to glean information about his campaign and the Obama administration. And a lot of us started yesterday with this tweet that I want to read for you now. That's what the President said.

Quote "if the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal. The President goes on to say, only the release or review of documents by the House intelligence committee also the Senate judiciary is asking for can give conclusive answers." And he goes on to say drain the swamp.

So the President interesting -- interested in the house intelligence committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, getting more information about this informant but there are those in the department of justice and the FBI very concerned that the release of that information could endanger this informant. So this, another attempt by the President to try and remove credibility for Robert Mueller's investigation. But at this point, it's not stopped that Mueller investigation from going forward -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Ryan Nobles at the White House, thanks so much.

Let's break down some of this if we could with CNN political analyst Patrick Healy and Julian Zelizer. Former FBI legislative liaison Greg Brower. And CNN's Jeremy Herb who has all the details on Trump's tweet storm this morning.

All right. So Greg, let me begin with you, because when the President says he is going to demand that the DOJ get to the bottom of this. Give us kind a legal scenario. Can he make that demand? Would DOJ be able to respond to that?

GREG BROWER, FORMER FBI LEGISLATIVE LIAISON: Well, Fredericka, it's complicated. What is happening currently of course is that the DOJ office of inspector general is doing an investigation of at least part of what the President seems to be troubled by. But beyond that, what the President simply could do as the head of the executive branch, if he had concerns about the underlying basis for the Russia investigation, is to call the deputy attorney general and the FBI director to the oval office and simply ask him to explain to him how this got started, whether they have any concerns about any political bias underlying the investigation. And he could simply get his answers that way.

This management or leadership by twitter is unprecedented to say the least and I'm sure that it is posing a real dilemma for those at the DOJ.

WHITFIELD: So -- and they would be able to say whether this is counter intelligence, whether that was something that was, you know, the norm to make sure that nobody is trying to influence U.S. elections, meaning an outside party, another country, or whether this was strictly politically motivated. They could say that or explain that just by simple question from the President?

BROWER: Well, and I think that is right. I think the answer from both the deputy AG and the FBI director would be a quick no sir. This is a fully predicated, properly predicated investigation. It is not based in any way on politics or political concerns or views. The DOJ simply does not do investigations for political reasons and I suspect that would be the answer and he could simply ask for that if he wanted to get to the bottom of it. [16:05:02] WHITFIELD: So then, Patrick, it's not clear whether the

President has really already done that, or whether he is being kind of knee jerked, just thinking out loud by tweet saying I'm going to get to the bottom of this, when potentially he has that information or he had the access to that kind of information without thinking out-loud via twitter?

PATRICK HEALY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. He doesn't need to launch a full on investigation to get this information, the specific information that he is asking for. You would think he could go to his own justice department and FBI director, the people he put in place and ask them, you know, you have my confidence as President of the United States here. You work for the United States government, what is happening and tell them.

The issue, Fred, is that from the get-go, President Trump has believed that the justice department is essentially an arm of his own to sort of do his bidding and particularly to protect him and defend him. He told the "New York Times" back in December that sort of his view of how the justice department worked under President Obama, how it could work for him was that an attorney general and his staff there would be looking out for the President constantly.

He has had this view of executive authority. And, you know, he does bring politics into everything. This is the point of his tweets. It just sort of suggests that, again, everything is a witch-hunt, everything is against him, that forces are conspiring against him, in his own government. And frankly, looking to figure out a way, he has been doing it for months to pit the justice department against Robert Mueller and the investigation.

WHITFIELD: So Julian, does this end up underscoring that the President is unfamiliar with his own executive powers or even unfamiliar with the separation of powers because of the way he would demand the DOJ do x, y or z?

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, unfamiliar is right a way to say it or uninterested is the other one. I think he is flexing his executive powers very aggressively. And he is doing it intentionally. I think he is really testing the limits of how far he can go to push back against what DOJ is doing.

And what's important is he is doing this in public. So I think part of his effort isn't simply just to restrain DOJ has an institution, it's to undermine the credibility with the public at the same time so that the DOJ backs away from what it's doing. And I think there is a pretty big move by a President. It is bigger than some of the things Richard Nixon did.

WHITFIELD: So Jeremy, you know, House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes has been, you know, leading this push for information on this, you know, confidential source. The President and the White House have talked about it being, you know, an informant. But this morning, he said, Nunes, he will not attend any more meetings with the DOJ until he gets the documents. So tell us about how this is influencing, disrupting Congress, I mean

what does this do when Devin Nunes makes statements like that and essentially imply that he is working in the interest, solely of the President?

JEREMY HERB, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, it's worth noting this whole fight over the informant, it began with a subpoena from Devin Nunes, who was looking for information about this confidential source. And it's not the first time that we had Nunes and other house Republicans demand information related to the start of the Russia investigation.

There were fights over the FISA memo, related to a two-page document that actually kicked off the investigation itself, and Nunes has demanded and gotten the documents he is sought in those cases.

Right now he has not gotten what he wants which is what he said today. He won't take additional meetings just to talk about it.

What Democrats say is the Nunes and other Republicans are trying to undermine both among investigations but also deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. They are saying this constant demand for new documents is trying to (INAUDIBLE) pretext that would allow the President to fire Mr. Rosenstein.

Now, it is not clear what he DOJ is going to do. Although, to this point, they have shown no indication they do plan to give Mr. Nunes the documents that he is looking for.

WHITFIELD: And in this according to our reporting from our Laura Jarrett, they are saying the White House has consulted before, justice wrote the original letter to House intel chairman Devin Nunes in early May declining to turn over documents on the source. And the White House agree the documents should not be disclosed.

So that only makings it that much more confusing in terms of why the President would tweet out what he did, Jeremy.

HERB: Yes, it shows a shift. And it also shows a divide perhaps between the President's views and those of his White House staff. John Kelly was involved, the chief of staff, in the initial dispute between Rod Rosenstein and Devin Nunes. They have some negotiations to try and find a resolution to this. So far that resolution hasn't materialized which is kind of what has prompted now the President to get involved himself and accuse DOJ of basically trying to implant this informant.

[16:10:08] WHITFIELD: And I wonder, Greg, you know, with the President's demand and how this complicates against the hierarchy of the department of justice, in terms of who would acquiesce, et cetera. You know, the attorney general has recuse himself or Rosenstein overseeing the Mueller investigation. And then we talked to a legal analyst earlier Paul Callan who said this kind of request would fall to the solicitor general, that's Noel Francisco. Is that how you would see it? Would that create any kind of complications? He is a selection from this President and was confirmed. BROWER: They all are. Yes, excuse me, Fredricka. Of course, the

entire DOJ leadership team are appointees of this President. And so, that makes the whole situation even stranger.

But I think -- I'm not so sure there's a conflict necessarily for deputy attorney general Rosenstein. I think at least initially he will -- it will be his dilemma in terms of responding to whatever demand the President may issue tomorrow.

But I think part of that dilemma is the fact that arguably, a demand for such an investigation is a demand for a political investigation in and of itself. And again, in my experience with DOJ, and at the FBI, the department simply doesn't do politically motivated investigations. And so to the extent that the deputy attorney general and the leadership team sees this as a politically motivated demand, that poses real problems for the department.

WHITFIELD: OK. And all of this related to, you know, the probe of Russia, how Russia may have influenced the election, and now something else that happened this weekend, involving -- you know, the contender against Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, apparently she was at Yale senior day and former Presidential candidate was the speaker. And she brought along a prop, so listen and watch.


HILLARY CLINTON (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now I see looking out at you, that you are following the tradition of over the top hats. So brought a hat too. A Russian hat.


WHITFIELD: OK, a rather bold move there, I'm just going to kick through all of you and get an idea of what you think, Jeremy, you first.

HERB: I mean, it shows, you know, that Hillary is still around. Perhaps still has just a little bit of bitterness and sourness over what happened. But you know, Russia, it's not going anywhere, that's for sure.


HEALY: I mean, she could have done a lot more blunt things, Fred. I mean, this was, you know, it's a good visual for her, but I mean, it's still, you know, it is still very much between Russia and Comey. I don't think that's something that at least people around the Clinton say, you know, she has been able to get over and move on from. I think she among many people want to see what Robert Mueller gets to the bottom of.

WHITFIELD: And Julian?

ZELIZER: Look. I think she reminds every one of the basic question what was the role of Russia and what was the connection with the Trump campaign if any in that election and did it sway the outcome. That's the basic question that everyone should still be focused on and we need to hear from Robert Mueller in terms of what he has found.

WHITFIELD: Greg, last word?

BROWER: Yes. This looks like this is a white Howard (ph) attempt at making sure the way you remembers that it's clear according to our intelligence community that Russia did attempt to influence the Presidential election. They apparently did so with the intent of assisting President Trump. And that is something that we simply can't get past without a full investigation and that's exactly what Bob Mueller is doing and I'm confident he will get to the bottom of it.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks to all of you. Appreciate it.

Still ahead, a very emotional service after ten students and teachers were gunned down at a Texas high school. What state leaders say needs to happen right now?

Plus, a dangerous situation on the big island of the Hawaii, only getting worse. Like geysers, I mean this volcano is spewing lava and it is releasing acid and steam with fine glass into the air.


[16:18:41] WHITFIELD: It's been a difficult day for the Santa Fe, Texas community. The first memorial service for one of the young lives lost from Friday's school shooting just wrapped up.

Sabika Sheikh, was a foreign exchange student from Pakistan. The 17- year-old is being remembered in Texas before her body is being flown home to her family tomorrow. We now know the names of each of the victims killed including 17-year-old Chris Stone and Jared Black. There is also substitute teachers Cynthia Tisdale, 16-year-old Shana Fisher and Kimberly Vaughn. Others include Glenda Anne Perkins, Christian Riley Garcia, Aaron Kyle McLeod and Angelique Ramirez.


WHITFIELD: Today Texas governor Greg Abbott met with some of the survivors at the church service in Santa Fe as the community comes together to love and support each other.

CNN anchor Erica Hill is leading our coverage live for us from Santa Fe.

What more can you tell us about all that people are going through there?

ERIC HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Understandably, Fredericka today, emotions are still very raw, as we know from having covered far too many of these, and for anyone who has ever lost a love one, especially under difficult circumstances.

It is a roller coaster of emotions for people especially now entering into the second day since this tragedy. There are a number of unanswered questions. There are also a number of questions about not just to victims are, but who the person is who is allegedly behind this.

We know that one of the victims Shana Fisher, her mother telling CNN she believes her daughter was specifically targeted because she rebuffed advances from the alleged shooter.

Earlier today, I spoke with the suspect's attorney. And I asked him specifically about that and also about where things stand.


[16:20:26] HILL: You met with your client yesterday?


HILL: How is he?

POEHL: He is having a difficult time right now. I think he is in some kind of shock. It's going to be a while before I can tell you more. There's some professionals who are going to have to be brought in to do evaluation. Buy, it obviously difficult circumstances.

HILL: Is he remorseful?

POEHL: We are not even there yet.

HILL: Is he aware that ten people are dead?

POEHL: I don't think we can answer to that. I don't think we know the answer to that yet.

ROBERT BARFIELD, ATTORNEY FOR DIMITRIOS PAGOURTZIS: We have had brief, brief visitations with our client. I mean, two 30-minute visitations. And he really hasn't been able to answer the question. We are going to have to sit down for house and ask him.

HILL: You said he hasn't been able to answer the question. Has he been responsive that he was actually -- I mean, are you engaging in conversations with him?

BARFIELD: We have conversations but we are telling him, what he needs to do right now to get through the next few days. We are not asking him (INAUDIBLE) questions at this point.

POEHL: Well, at this point, we don't have the information with which to start asking these questions. I mean, the timing, this happening on a Friday and then a weekend where the information flow is really just what is in the media, nothing from the state. Once we starts -- begin that discovery process, we can start asking more intelligence questions.

HILL: Have you spoken with the d investigator at all?

BARFIELD: We have spoken to the DA.

POEHL: We have spoken with the DA's office.

BARFIELD: The first assistant.

HILL: And so, everything at this point had to wait until Monday?

POEHL: It is going to wait until Monday.

HILL: In terms of what we do now and a lot if obviously is based on that affidavit. In that affidavit, your client reportedly confessed to shooting and multiple people with the intent to kill. Did he confirm that with you?

POEHL: He has not confirmed that and at this point we don't have the information to confirm what's in the PC affidavit.

HILL: So, also in that affidavit is that intentionally spared people he quote "liked so they could tell his story."

POEHL: Same answer. We just don't -- we don't know at this point if that is accurate or not.

HILL: The mother of one of the victims, 16 Shana Fishier told us at CNN that she believed her daughter was specifically targeted because she rebuffed his advances. Were people targeted?

POEHL: We have spoken to the DA's office to try to get a little bit of information on that when that story broke yesterday. Right now, we don't have anything and the DA doesn't have anything to either confirm or deny that.

HILL: There are also reports that bullying did put out. And the school district came out pretty strongly against those reports saying we have investigated this didn't happen. Has any of that come up in conversation with either your client or his family?

BARFIELD: Well, there has been some common stations on that. We need to delve into it more. But the other problem is the school district doesn't say how they investigated it or when they investigated it. If they investigated it after the shooting happened, that's really short investigation.

HILL: Do you believe that it may have been reported prior to the shooting?

BARFIELD: We are not sure of that. We don't have that information yet.

POEHL: What is interesting about that Santa Fe statement is again, it was released just a little bit more than 24 hours after. At this point, there are no indications that they actually spoke to the student survivors that were reporting this bullying and reporting it to the media in the last couple of days. Without talking to them I'm not sure how Santa Fe can be in a position to strongly deny or I think they use the words confirm the untruth of it. I don't know how they can be saying that at this point. It will be interesting to learn as we go forward, what exactly that investigation consisted of.

HILL: They -- in the same though, they actually referenced coaches. So they referenced coaches.

POEHL: Correct.

HILL: Not just students. So do you believe that they have not done their due diligence in terms of speaking with those coaches?

BARFIELD: We don't know. That was a very short statement.


HILL: So still a lot of unanswered questions.

Joining me now is CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI supervisory special agent James Gagliano.

You know, one of the things that the lawyers pointed out is the fact that not a lot is getting done because it is a weekend. We have covered tragedies, we have dealt with tragedies before that has happened on Friday or can happen over the weekend. Are you surprised that there seems to be so little, at least that we are aware of that is actually happening? That we are consistently being told what we have to wait until business opens on Monday?

JAMES GAGLIANO, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, officials here, as we know, have been pretty tighten-lip about what the releasing. And some of that maybe purposeful. You do that initially because you don't want to do anything until you are certain that this is a lone actor, that there's not accomplices or you are not going to scare anybody else away that might be looking at.

HILL: They told us that. They said they believe that he acted alone. There is also to your point that they are pretty tight-lip. We expect a certain amount of that in an investigation because obviously you don't want to compromise investigation. That being said, we have actually heard more and received more details from the governor who seems to relaying information that he has obtained than we are from investigators. Does that surprise you?

GAGLIANO: No. I think from the law enforcement perspective, the less said, unless you need the public's health, the better. Now, you want to give the public the right to know things that need to be put out in the public domain. But you also, as they are working through, this is this still a crime scene. And it is a sobering place right now as they are going through, they are calling these journals, these online manifestos that this young man put together.

I described him and talked to some other folks who believe the same, he is an enigma. I mean, this is somebody who has kind of all over the place politically, ideologically speaking. Was it a mental health issue? Or was this just somebody who was aggrieved.

And I have also heard that there's some speculation right now that this could also be part of a copycat killer type thing where young people now expose to so much more, where there is violent video games or what they see in the news, what they watch on TV as far as movies and television shows and turn to violence as a means, as an answer to oppose to something else getting help.

[16:25:51] HILL: Still so many question and not a lot of answers happening, at least this week.

And James, appreciate you offering insight. Thank you.

Fred, will send back over to you.

WHITFIELD: All right, James and Erica, thank you so much.

All right. Still ahead, a man seriously injured when lava spatter lands on him while he is sitting on the balcony of his home. And now lava a brand-new danger as smoke and lave collides with the ocean. It is called laze, lava and haze, that is sending hydrochloric acid and volcanic glass particles into the air.

[16:30:50] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN NEWSROOM, ANCHOR: All right, welcome back. This breaking news just in CNN, President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani says the Special Counsel plans to wrap up their investigation by September 1st, and this is about the investigation of the Russia obstruction inquiry, that according to the New York Times reporting, where the New York Times is saying that according to their conversation with Giuliani.

He said waiting any longer would risk improperly influencing voters in the midterms. I'm reading directly now from the New York Times article, saying according Rudy Giuliani, who said on Sunday that waiting any longer would risk improperly influencing voters in the midterm elections in November.

All right, let's bring again legal analyst Paul Cohen, who is with me on the phone. So Paul, how does this sound to you that Rudy Giuliani would tell the New York Times this, and say that this is also based on a conversation he had with the Special Council.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN, LEGAL ANALYST: It's a very strange statement from Giuliani. He has made other statements previously. Some have proven to be very, very accurate. Others have proven to be totally inaccurate and controversial. So he hasn't been particularly in the long run. Of course, I mean there's a logic to try to end the investigation before the midterm elections.

That would be a sensible goal to have, but given the complexity of the investigation, and you know, right now 22 people have been charged criminally, 5 have pled guilty. It seems like the special prosecutor has an awful lot on his plate to finish up by September. So I just have my doubts (Inaudible).

WHITFIELD: I am reading now directly from this New York Times article, the next paragraph, which says the office of the Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller shared its timeline over two weeks ago amid negotiations about whether Mr. Trump will be questioned by investigators, Mr. Giuliani said in an interview, a spokesman for the Special Counsel office however declining to comment. CALLAN: It sounds like if that's true, there were putting on the

table a negotiating chip, essentially if the President testifies or gives a statement, and he clarifies the number of issues that we're investigating, we may be able to wrap this thing up by September. I can see how that might be put in the table as a real (Inaudible) to induce the President to actually come and testify and give a statement. But if the President refuses to give such a statement, all bets will be off, and they'll continue with their investigation. That's my bet.

WHITFIELD: And so we know that Rudy Giuliani, when he first came on board as the personal attorney, he said that one of his objectives was to help press the Special Counsel to wrap it up. You know let's get this over with quickly, because it's been now we know a year as of this week, But in your view, wouldn't it be particularly unusual for a Special Counsel, while investigating to make any promises to those who are being investigated, that there is a certain time stamp in which the investigation would end?

CALLAN: Yes, it would be very strange, Fred, for a special prosecutor to do that. And particularly this independent counsel. Mueller has a reputation for being very close to the best, almost no leaks coming out of that office. And he's not somebody to throw out promises like that, given complex investigation, where a new witness coming through the door tomorrow could change the length of the investigation. So if he said it, it would be a big surprise to me and other lawyers who follow these things very closely.

[16:35:01] WHITFIELD: Could this be a Rudy Giuliani misunderstanding, that perhaps he proposed the September 1, but didn't necessarily get a commitment from Robert Mueller or anybody else that the investigation would end September 1?

CALLAN: I tell you this. There are a lot of things in life that I would like to try, but psycho analyzing Rudolph Giuliani is not on the list. I really don't know. You know, the thing that's amazed me about Giuliani, a lot of he's very sensible. He looks like a guy who's got a grip on reality and knows how to represent a client. And then other times, he makes statements that are just headline grabbing statements and prove to be unreliable. So it's -- I am not even going to venture a guess on whether this is accurate or not.

WHITFIELD: there are many investigations, but this apparently, according to the New York Times reporting, is Giuliani talking about the obstruction of the investigation involving the Mueller team. And I am reading directly from the New York Times you know, article saying the Special Counsel plans to finish by September 1, its investigation into whether President Trump obstructed the Russia inquiry, according to President's lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Does that change at all just that clarity of obstruction?

CALLAN: Yes. That does add a little clarity to the statement, because you could read that statement to say the obstruction part of the investigation will be over by September 1. That doesn't say that the Russia part of it or to that matter other things that we may not even be aware of. Manafort, for instance is being investigated for money laundering and tax violations. There may be other people similarly being investigated, so that is a real a limit on the meaning of that statement I would say.

WHITFIELD: And why would the Special Counsel even do that, share that kind of information?

CALLAN: Well, I think the reason he might share that, as opposed to other things is that the President has repeatedly said that there's nothing to the Russia investigation. There's no evidence of solution, and the only thing left outstanding is the obstruction investigation. So if the President felt that the obstruction investigation would cease as of September, if he would come forward and give a statement to Mueller.

That might be an inducement that would be sufficient to get him to the table. But, and here's the big but. Today, the President sends this tweet out, saying he wants a new investigation into individuals who spied on his campaign, and -- which of course, would extend the length of the Mueller probe and maybe even require a new independent prosecutor to be appointed.

So the President's in a deeply contradictory position now, with his counsel saying he wants to end it quickly, and the President advocating a new investigation.

WHITFIELD: All right. Paul Callan, thank you so much.

CALLAN: Thank you, Fred.

WHITFIELD: And we'll have much more on this breaking news and other items when we come back.


[16:35:01] WHITFIELD: Welcome back. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. After weeks of tension over trade, the U.S. and China have reached a ceasefire, both sides say they will hold off on any tariffs after reaching an agreement that would see China significantly increase the purchase of U.S. and services. Speaking this morning, Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, he wouldn't discuss any specifics however.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have specific targets. I am not going to publicly disclose what they are. They go by industry by industry. And as I said, not only do we have targets, but ultimately, this is about industry, being able to have hard contracts and deliver these goods.


WHITFIELD: All right. I want to bring in Jamie Metzl. He was on the staff at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration and is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Counsel. Good to see you. So this agreement basically on the part of the Chinese to buy more U.S. goods without specific commitments, what does that mean to you? JAMIE METZL, ATLANTIC COUNSEL, SENIOR FELLOW: Well, it's not that big

of a deal in the sense that it will be great, in the sense that it will be great. If China decides to buy more from the United States, it certainly helps people in the United States, particularly people who are buying agricultural products or energy.

But there's also a harm to the United States, and that for China, they have to buy these goods anyway, so they're either going to get them from the United States or from allies in many cases of the United States. So if they're buying more soybeans from us, maybe that means less from Canada, less from the E.U., after getting less liquefied natural gas from us, it will be less from Australia whose a close ally of the United States.

So China is going to be just where they are. The United States will get a little bit of bump up in agriculture and energy exports. But we're going to harm our allies, so that ultimately will hurt us. Secondly, the name of the game is not the economies of the past, which is agriculture and energy. This is really about the economies of the future, about intellectual property, about advanced A.I., robotics, everything else.

So in the joint communique, they say that intellectual property is important, and it certainly is. But China has made no commitment to change the rules of the game for doing business with China and in China, and that ultimately important than changing the deficit.

WHITFIELD: So the whole issue of the intellectual properties, that's a big one, you know. And the U.S. accusing China or at least this administration accusing them of really stealing, robbing you know the U.S. of intellectual property. So where would that be in that administration if there is a demand from President Trump to change which it does business? Is that on the table and (Inaudible) for China.

METZL: Certainly, the Trump Administration has said that this is something that is important. But the question is, if you were China, and you were betting your whole country on developing these industries of the future. What's going to get you to change? And so certainly with the United States, at least with this current strategy isn't going to do it, because we're talking about deficit reduction.

And it's much easier for China to address the issue deficit reduction than it is to address the broader issues of technology and intellectual property right. And so the Trump Administration really wanted to push China on IPR and new technologies. The way to do it would be to get all our allies together and together and to develop a joint standard for what future trade ought to look like.

And that's what the United States did under past Republican and Democrat administrations, and that's what the (Inaudible) partnership was. It was ultimate pressure mechanism on China for these advanced issues, including IPR. And without that, what we're left is this beggar by neighbor strategy, which is what we have now. And the Chinese have the Trump Administration really on the ropes, because yes, there is this threat of tariffs. But the Chinese know that Trump is addicted to the dopamine hits of

these small wins, and that's what they're giving us.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there. Jamie Metzl, thank you so much.

METZL: My pleasure.

WHITFIELD: All right. So much more straight ahead in the Newsroom, but first here's this week's turning points.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually, I am black and I am a beauty and inspirational blogger on YouTube. I do transformation videos. That is what people really know me for. The thing that really separates me from everybody else on YouTube video is my scars. I am from Nigeria, and I got burned when I was nine years old at my mother's restaurant. The pan of oil literally fell on me and my younger sister.

I am not sure exactly how many surgeries I got (Inaudible) life took a huge, huge turn for me. I didn't want to go to school, and everybody would look at me and feel disgusted. I started thinking about committing suicide because of the bullying. When I moved here I got introduced to proper makeup in the hospital. But then I came across YouTube videos.

I started implying that to how I want my makeup to look. I started getting emails and (Inaudible) people telling me how I inspire them, how they are willing to challenge themselves and face fears. They don't feel any different whether I have makeup or not. I am very, very much in tune with my looks. I see beauty regardless.



[16:50:01] WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. It's been a very difficult day for the Santa Fe, Texas community, following Friday's devastating shooting. I want to bring back CNN Anchor Erica Hill, who is leading our coverage there, Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN, CORRESPONDENT: Fred, thank you. There's been so much talk coming out of this, a lot of raw emotions obviously. And some of those we're actually from the nearby the police chief. Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo posted rather on Facebook a lengthy post on read in part. And some have strong feelings about gun rights. But I want you to know I hit rock bottom, and I'm not interested in your views as it pertains to the issue.

Please do not post anything that guns aren't the problem, and there's little we can do. My feelings won't be hurt if you de-friend me, and I hope yours won't be if you decide to post about your views, and I de-friend you, those words, obviously sparking quite a strong reaction. Chief Acevedo joins us now. Sir, I appreciate you taking the time for us, you said there, don't post anything about guns aren't the problem and there's little we can do. What do you believe could have been done that would have prevented these deaths here on Friday?

ART ACEVEDO, HOUSTON, POLICE CHIEF: Well, I mean first and foremost, we can't have that defeatist attitude. We're Americans. We're pragmatic and we're a can do nation with a can do spirit. I'm tired of saying that they can be done. For Friday's event, we can toughen our laws as it pertains to being responsible gun owners and having our guns in a secure place where no one can get to them, and having consequences if you just leave them where anyone can get them, including your own family members or friends or neighbors.

The other thing is we have safety standards across the nation for automobiles, child seats, for you name it. It's time for us to start having safety standards for firearms. Technology is to the point where we need to start looking at smart trigger mechanisms that have biometrics, and we need to do something other than having a defeatist attitude, that there's nothing that can be done.

I don't by that. I don't think many Americans do, and it's time for actions and not just words and prayers.

HILL: We should point out there has been some action, especially in the last few months, not led obviously by elected officials, but by a number of young people who were affected Parkland. There has also been some criticism though, and I am speaking to folks here in the area earlier, who said we don't understand why Chief Acevedo is weighing in at this point. This is not his jurisdiction.


ACEVEDO: I am not weighing in on their investigation. I am weighing in on the gun issue. I am weighing in on the violence.


HILL: Why is he weighing in on this?

ACEVEDO: Because it's a moral responsibility that we have as police leaders. You know I am the Vice President of the Law Enforcement Chiefs Association. Most importantly, I've dedicated my adult life to this profession. We're weighing into it because all children matter and this is an issue that is not going to go away through prayer.

[16:55:01] This is an issue that's not going to go away with the attitude that, let's wait, it's too soon. It is not too soon. It's too late, and I am grateful that my mayor here in this city and other local leaders is starting to weigh in. And at the end of the day, young people are weighing in and I think there's a great awakening amongst youth, and they're truly going to be the future and the solution to this issue and other issues in our society.

HILL: Many discussions still come to come on this. We're going to have to leave it there. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

ACEVEDO: Great. Thank you.

HILL: Fred, I'll hand it back to you. WHITFIELD: All right. Erica, thank you. Now to this week's CNN

hero, twice a month Paul (Inaudible) spends his own money to fly dogs from high kill shelters to the south to no-kill shelters in the north.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You just look like my Tessa. You're just like my baby girl. I try to greet every passenger before we load them on to the aircraft to spend a few moments with them. Here you go. So they can see me, they can smell me. We'll load the airplane up and then we'll make stops along the eastern coast. I'm quite certain they know they know things are about to change. They know things are getting better and they're not going to end up in the pound.


WHITFIELD: All right. To see the full story, nominate someone you think should be a CNN hero by going to

I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Thank you so much for being with me this Sunday. We have more for you in the Newsroom with Ana Cabrera and it all starts right after this.