Return to Transcripts main page

ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT

Trump's Demands Escalate Pressure on Rosenstein to Preserve Justice Department's Independence; President Trump's Deep State Theory; Libby Schaaf Act; Interview with Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, California; NYT: Trump Jr. Met with Gulf Envoy at Trump Tower in 2016; Sources: Trump Aides Growing Skeptical Trump-Kim Summit Will Happen. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired May 21, 2018 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[19:00:00] ERIN BURNETT, CNN ACNHOR: OUTFRONT next, President Trump and his allies stepping up their war against Rod Rosenstein, pushing the conspiracy theory that he's part of a deep state against Trump. Will it work?

Plus, the FBI confidential source that provided all that information about the Trump campaign, was he there for political reasons? And Trump threatens to have a sanctuary city mayor investigated for obstruction of justice, a congressman trying to pass a bill that would land her in prison for five years. He even named the bill after her. Tonight I'll speak exclusively with the Oakland mayor. Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening, I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, the deep state. The President and his closest allies tonight intensifying a war against the Justice Department, in particular against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Trump's outside advisers, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, Cory Lewandowski, Steve Bannon, aggressively painting Rosenstein as part of a deep state plot against the president of the United States.

Now the campaign, our Jake Tapper reports tonight, focusing on pushing Rosenstein to reveal details about the investigation that both the Justice Department and FBI do not want out in the public.

Let's take exhibit A, and that is Trump's claim that the FBI infiltrated his campaign. The President demanding details in a meeting this afternoon with the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, was there, along with the FBI director, Christopher Wray. They all came to the White House to meet with the president. And Trump's attack to the Justice Department became a full-on onslaught.

So here's how it started, right? It started with this. If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that's a really big deal. Only the release or review of documents of the House Intelligence Committee, also Senate Judiciary is asking for -- can give the conclusive answers. Drain the swamp.

Now, it's important at this point to say this. Sources tell CNN that the FBI's confidential source was not planted in the Trump campaign. But that has not stopped the President and his friends. In fact, the President's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is saying tonight that the President shouldn't sit down with the special counsel Bob Mueller for an interview in the Russia investigation until, so it's now it become a condition, he knows more about the source.

Giuliani insisting Trump could be called walking into a trap. The question, is this really the case, or is this just another excuse and another stall tactic to try to delay Trump from sitting down with Mueller because, frankly, here's one thing that's been consistent. There's been an excuse, it seems, a day from this White House. If fact, it was just three days ago that Giuliani had this to say about a potential Trump/Mueller interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: What is a no-go zone for you? What is off the table? If this is on the table, we will know.

RUDAY GIULIANI, DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: Oh, 12 hours of sitting there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: OK, so can't be 12 hours. So now we got a time limit on there. And now there's more. Giuliani also has other specific requirements when it comes to the actual interview. Here are a few.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What to you would be acceptable parameters for an interview?

GIULIANI: Two hours.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And topics?

GIULIANI: Questions in advance, relevant topics. Meaning, Russia which may not be relevant any longer, and then we want a commitment from them that they're going to decide before the end of the summer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Wait, wait. So can't be up to 12 hours. Now it's only two hours and, I mean, this is pretty incredible. Get the questions in advance. Russia may or may not be on the table. It seems team Trump is looking for anything to use as an excuse to avoid the Trump-Mueller interview.

Remember when the FBI raided the home and office of Michael Cohen, the President's long-time attorney? Well, at that time, that was excuse number one. An official telling CNN at the time, "anybody with common sense will see this attack on his lawyer as cause to re-evaluate an interview. And when all other excuses fail, Giuliani has no fear. He will try the stall tactic."

He's now telling "The Wall Street Journal," that, well, you know, even if all that's met, the sit down can't happen until even after the summit with the North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un because, you know, we got to prepare and we got to focus on that.

Excuses, stalling, accusing your own Justice Department of being unjust, what is the real reason behind this strategy? As we've said so many times, if there is nothing to hide, why not just sit down and answer the questions.

Jeff Zeleny is OUTFRONT live at the White House. And, Jeff, you know, this obviously an amazing interview, to imagine being a fly on the wall, there you have the FBI director, the deputy attorney general who of course is the target of a war from the president at this point. And they're all in a room together, what happened?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, it was a regularly scheduled meeting, but there was nothing regular about this meeting, because the President is indeed doing something quite unprecedented here. He is, you know, calling on an investigation for the investigation, and he simply is trying to continue, many people here in Washington believe, you know, just the idea of going after Bob Mueller in every direction.

[19:05:10] Now, we are not getting much of a read-out from that meeting itself. We did see all of the gentlemen leaving after about an hour or so and they had smiles on their faces. We do not know what that means of course. But we do know this, we do know that the White House is going to facilitate some type of meeting with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, having a meeting, having Congressional leaders over to the White House to view these highly sensitive documents here.

And this is something that the White House has been deeply in the middle of, the Justice Department has refused so far, but we do not know what John Kelly is going to see. And we're just hearing from our Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, that Adam Schiff, the top Democrat, of course, on the committee is saying why should John Kelly be in the middle of this? Should the White House be getting this sensitive information?

So, Erin, I'm not sure that this has advanced anything here, but we do know this is unprecedented and it's Monday. Who knows who will still be working here by the end of the week, any firings, we don't know. That certainly could happen.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Jeff. I want to go straight now with the Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York, also Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

And, Congressman, obviously you heard the, you know, the breaking news here that Jeff was sharing about the meeting itself. About an hour, they come out with smiles on their faces. But I want to ask you about John Kelly, because, obviously, your colleague, Adam Schiff, is weighing in on this.

Apparently, one thing that came out of the meeting is that, John Kelly is going to have another meeting with some Congressional leaders and share some of this classified, confidential information that is relevant to the President's claim that, you know, that he was infiltrated and spied upon. Do you know who will see this information?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D), NEW YORK: I don't. What I do know is that it's highly improper and wrong for confidential information about an ongoing criminal investigation to be shared with the president, with John Kelly, or with anyone else, or with Congressional leaders for that matter.

BURNETT: You share that concern about John Kelly?

NADLER: Not just John Kelly and Congressional leaders. It is outrageous that they are demanding that confidential information about an ongoing criminal investigation be shared, especially when we hear information that may result in the outing of a confidential informant. That would be criminal. And there's no business for this.

I think that this is all looking, excuse after excuse, to give the president the justification to fire Mueller and to eliminate this investigation. In fact, this whole thing can be viewed simply as more acts of obstruction of justice, obstruction of the investigation.

BURNETT: OK. You know, I want to get back to the point about how they came out of the meeting. You know, Jeff Zeleny's reporting, it was about an hour or so, and you're talking about FBI director Wray and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, when they came out there with smiles on their faces.

Now, we don't know exactly what happened in that room. Again, your colleague, Adam Schiff, just telling our Manu Raju, he is concern that the DOJ, hit word, may have capitulated. So they're out there publically saying, revealing this source could put this person's life at risk, obviously as we all know others have chosen to out this person's name. Are you concerned about capitulation, or do you still have full faith in Wray and Rosenstein?

NADLER: You know, I would hope that they, that I could have full faith in them. I have no reason not to. I don't -- just the evidence that they were smiling, maybe the White House capitulated and drew back. I don't know.

I mean, but the fact that they are putting Rosenstein and the Justice Department under pressure to reveal confidential information about an ongoing criminal investigation is an abuse of power by the President, a total abuse of power.

BURNETT: You know, "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board today wrote and Op-Ed or an editorial, lead editorial, which I thought was interesting. They're making the argument that this whole concern about this person's identity is much ado about nothing in the sense of, they say the same stories that don't disclose this person's identification, have disclosed so many specific details about the informant, whom we dare not call a spy, but you can discover the name of a likely suspect in a single Google search. And what do you -- NADLER: Well, it was totally wrong to have divulged any of the information, his name or anything else about this person. And that's why people like Devin Nunes and Meadows and Jordan and other president, are acting completely against the law.

BURNETT: Are you confident, Congressman, can you completely rule out that this person, this confidential intelligence source, whom we are not naming, was not planted in the Trump campaign or trying to access the Trump campaign and talk to anyone around the Trump campaign for political reasons, can you rule that out?

NADLER: Yes. I think I would rule it out, simply because there's no evidence of that whatsoever, none. And even Giuliani said he had no basis for that and no evidence. So I can rule that out the way I can rule out any notion for which there's no evidence.

[19:10:08] BURNETT: You have said that Democrats need to wait and see, the bottom line. But what Mueller comes up with before you even consider 2impeachment. You and I spoke last week, you were careful to say, you know what, I'm not ready to talk about that. The minority leader Nancy Pelosi has been warning unless there's bipartisan support, that sort of talk could backfire, it could just look partisan and political. But there are some in your party who still vocally disagree. Here are two.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Are you not persuaded by the idea that it would be a tactical mistake.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: No, I'm not persuaded by the idea.

REP. AL GREEN (D), TEXAS: Mr. President, if no one else does, I will not allow the constitution to be ignored and to a certain extent, trampled upon. I'll bring the articles of impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: They're not afraid of that word impeachment. Are they wrong to be talking about it so openly?

NADLER: No, they are not wrong to be talking about it. But it would be wrong to do it right now. An impeachment is a very heavy thing, and we have to have the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery or treason. There's a lot of indications of that, but we don't have solid evidence of that yet. When we do, then we'd have to consider it, if we do.

BURNETT: But at this point, you're saying with everything you've seen, any testimony you've seen, all the reports you've seen, you just don't think we're there?

NADLER: I don't think we're there yet. I think we have to wait for the report of the special prosecutor. And I think right now, the most important thing is to protect the integrity of the special prosecutor's investigation from the attacks by Republican members of Congress and by the White House, which are obviously aimed at stopping it.

And those are acts that could be considered obstruction of justice. That investigation, Mr. Rosenstein's independence, Mr. Mueller's independence must be protected as the highest importance right now.

BURNETT: Congressman Nadler, thanks.

NADLER: And we'll where at least.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you for you time tonight.

And next, President Trump's re-election campaign, sending out e-mails with the subject line "Worse than Watergate." Plus, Trump threatening to investigate this woman for obstruction of justice. And now a congressman is threatening her with prison time. The mayor of Oakland is my exclusive guest, her first national interview tonight.

And more breaking news, new doubts this evening that the Trump-Kim summit will happen, these details coming from deep inside the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:16:08] BURNETT: New tonight, President Trump's re-election campaign looking to capitalize on the FBI's use of that confidential intelligence source during the 2016 presidential race. The e-mail titled "Worse than Watergate," asking supporters to sign a petition that says, quote, "I hereby demand that the Department of Justice investigate whether Obama's FBI and DOJ infiltrated or or surveilled our campaign for political purposes. This could be the greatest political scandal in American history."

Classic Trump of course to turn around the Watergate which people have been using against him, to say, this is the worst since Watergate go, oh, yes, it is and I'm the victim. OUTFRONT now, former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and former Special Assistant to James Comey, Josh Campbell and former Justice Department Official Francey Hakes, and thanks to both.

Francey, let me start with you tonight. The e-mail, right, the re- election e-mail, you know, says, look, this confidential source gathered information will be worse than Watergate, greatest political scandal in American history, could this be true?

FRANCEY HAKES, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, it could be if the Justice Department and the FBI were using the national security apparatus, confidential informants, using clandestine tools to surveil a political campaign. Absolutely, if that's the truth, yes. It's a terrible, terrible scandal.

BURNETT: Josh, if that's the truth, you would say yes too?

JOSH CAMPBELL, FORMER FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: Well, that's a problem with how we couch this arguments, by saying, if this, if X is true --

BURNETT: You don't like the hypothetical.

CAMPBELL: It's all hypothetical. So the administration will set up a strong a straw man and they knock it down, which, you know, if smart people will stop and realize what's taking place, you would have to agree with the premise of what they're saying in order to, you know, think that there's a scandal here.

I will say this, that in comparison to Watergate, is really bizarre. Because if you -- as you alluded to, if you think about what Watergate was, this was an investigation into gross and wanton abuse of power by the executive branch. You had attacks on the FBI, you had attacks on the press, you had attacks on our institution of justice.

It's (inaudible), you know, they bandy about this phrase fake news, back in the day, it was shabby journalism, which doesn't have the same ring to it. But there are similarities here, so if this is going to be worse than that, I can't imagine what this is.

BURNETT: So, Francey, you have this whole (inaudible) going on, right, about this informant and how significant this is or is not. Moments ago on the Senate floor, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, slammed President Trump's tweet. Right in the tweet, the President had demanded an investigation, right, is, you know, basically taking this by the reins and saying, oh, far from being the one to something to hide, I want you to show me your money. Here is what he said Chuck Schumer said in response, Francey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: The President's demand is a blatant abuse of executive power, and an ill-informed sloppy attempt to discredit the duly constituted investigation led by the special counsel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Blatant abuse, ill-informed, discredit, is Senator Schumer right?

HAKES: No. Erin, these sort of attacks always make me laugh, although it's a very serious matter, because the President is the chief executive. And if there is misconduct going on inside the executive branch, the president has an absolute -- not just a right, but a duty to demand that the Justice Department investigate. And that's all he did.

If you look at the tweet, it says investigate if I was surveilled for improper purposes. And when you look at all the details that have come out since, with the struck page e-mails that talk about an insurance policy, Andy McCabe and his ties to the Democrats, and the Democratic administration being the one to start this investigation, it's hard to say that it's not political.

CAMPBELL: Let me say something real quickly. BURNETT: Josh, you're shaking your head.

CAMPBELL: Yes, I'm shaking my head. First of all, let's dispense with this notion of Andy McCabe. Now, what you just did was Andy McCabe to his wife, with a separate human being, with her own thoughts, here own political beliefs, and who ran for office and lost. So to say that Andy McCabe was embed with the Democratic Party, nice try, it's creative but correct these are Republicans, but let's move to the bigger argument.

HAKES: I never said he was embedded with anyone, just to be clear.

[19:20:06] CAMPBELL: OK. So moving out to the next argument, so to say that the President is rightfully exercising his authority to oversee the Justice Department, in this case, it doesn't hold water because only in authoritarian regimes does the chief executive get to turn to national law enforcement and demand -- you can laugh all you want, this is serious business. And say, you must conduct an investigation.

I've worked in some of those countries and they are not places that you would want to live where national law enforcement has that power and is under the thumb of law enforcement. So in this cast, you can't simply say the president, as head of the executive, is doing his due diligence, because he's a conflicted party in this. He is the person that's part of the investigation.

BURNETT: Francey?

HAKES: Erin, there's an allegation that there has been political spying on a presidential campaign. That is what the president is rightfully demanding an answer to, and that --

CAMPBELL: Who made the allegation, Francey?

HAKES: -- is what the inspector general, that's what's the inspector general, that's what the Office of Professional Responsibility is for.

BURNETT: But, Francey, I guess the question is he makes the allegation and that he demands the investigation, is that not a problem?

HAKES: Well, the President didn't make the allegation first.

BURNETT: Who made the allegation?

HAKES: It came out in the media. First it came out in the media, confirmed by New York Times and Washington Post saying current and former FBI sources. Josh, your brethren, are apparently leaking like a sieve and saying that the beginning of this investigation was clandestine in nature, which we discussed on Friday so wrong --

CAMPBELL: So what's the allegation, Francey? You've said a lot of words, but you're not making the point.

HAKES: That the allegation, Josh, is that, it was political to begin with. That there was no probable cause, certainly no probable cause for a criminal investigation.

CAMPBELL: With respect, with respect. What you just said is bluntly untrue. You said there are people inside the FBI that are leaking, saying the investigation was political in nature. Is that what you're saying? Because the facts don't support that, nor these articles that you say.

HAKES: But that's what the media is saying, that the leaks suggest there was no probable cause to start this investigation, that it was a CIA asset being run at an American presidential candidate. That should shock everyone, including you, Josh.

CAMPBELL: If it's true, and it's another allegation, this if true.

BURNETT: OK, right. And, of course, we know, you know, George Padopoulos had a meeting with the Australian ambassador and that of course is also how this may have started. Let me just read you a quote, Francey, from Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent. She wrote in "Relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information," right, perhaps referring to your point, they couldn't take it further, but she has a different conclusion.

She continues, "Suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously, perhaps too cautiously to protect the campaign, not undermine it. Ironically, the FBI's apparent attempt to protect the campaign by investigating Russia's efforts quietly is now being weaponized against it." Is it possible, Francey, that this is what this is about? That the FBI looks and says, wait, all these people who are Russian agents around this campaign, maybe we want to see what these people are doing in there to make sure it isn't a problem? Is it possible that's what it was?

HAKES: No, this may be the most ridiculous thing I have heard in the context of this investigation. No one runs a confidential informant against an agency or a target with the intention of protecting them. That is ridiculous. You run a confidential informant for one purpose, to inform on the target, period.

BURNETT: Ridiculous, Josh?

CAMPBELL: No, it's not ridiculous. Let me just say, you know, it's important that people remain in their circle of confidence when it comes to talking about these types of investigations. And I'd bet my money any day on Asha Rangappa who is a former counterintelligence agent with the FBI, who used to run these cases, and what she will tell you, if you read the article, and the people who, you know, relying with her way of thinking is that, when an FBI agent starts an investigation, particularly where a foreign hostile intelligence service may be running up against an American, they don't go in suspecting the American is the bad guy. They go in trying to mitigate a threat.

So when you're going in that there's evidence of an allegation that there are some type of Russian interference or, you know, going after the Trumps, they go in thinking, how do we protect these people, how do we go after the hostile intelligence service. If that then leads them to believe that there's collusion or coordination, that's a whole different story. But I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt for those who've done this investigation (inaudible).

HAKES: I have one example, just one example, of where this has been ever done before. Because I have handled counterintelligence, counterespionage matters as well as criminal matters and I have never, in all my years as a prosecutor, have I ever heard of an informant being run at a target for protection. It's absurd.

CAMPBELL: No, it's not absurd. Look at the people who do the job, who are on the ground, who are working and running up against these intelligence services and who are running these informants. I know their goal was not only, you know, to focus on criminal investigative activity but to mitigate those threats from hostile indigence services before they're able to co-opt Americans.

BURNETT: All right. We will hit pause there. Thank you both.

And next, the mayor of Oakland, first Trump threatened to investigate her, now a congressman is threatening her with five years in prison, my exclusive interview with Mayor Libby Schaaf.

[19:25:07] And reports of another secret meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and foreign officials offering to help elect his dad. Does the first son understand that that may be against the law, or does he not care?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BURNETT: New tonight, the war on sanctuary cities. Officials supporting the policies could be headed to jail for five years. Immigration hard liner Steve King of Iowa has introduced a new law today that would make it illegal for local officials to tip-off undocumented immigrants about ICE raids. And the threat is, if you do it, you could go to prison for five years.

King is calling it the mayor Libby Schaaf Act, naming it after the mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf, who has warned her community about upcoming ICE raids. Trump pushing the Justice Department to investigate Schaaf for obstruction of justice, so it's an all out onslaught.

In just a moment, Mayor Schaaf we'll be joining me for an exclusive interview, but I want to begin with Sunlen Serfaty on Capitol Hill. And, Sunlen, this bill from Congressman King, is it all about trying to please the President who of course has slammed Mayor Schaaf and sort of made her the face of these sanctuary city policies?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think in large part yes, Erin. Certainly, Steve King here is really essentially picking up the fight for President Trump, more so than this bill actually likely becoming law. We certainly know how President Trump feels about sanctuary cities, we certainly know how he feels about the Oakland mayor. He has really been zero (inaudible). It was only last week that President Trump suggested that she should be investigated for obstruction of justice. So we've seen from Congressman King in releasing this proposed legislation saying, she's really stealing a page from the President's own tally book in really poking her in the eye by naming the bill after the Oakland mayor and using the same language as President Trump in the legislation.

Steve King saying, quote, this is obstruction of justice and Americans don't have to put up with it. I want lawless sanctuary city politicians to hear this message clearly. If you obstruct ICE, you're going to end up in the cooler. That from Steve King today in the release about his proposed legislation. And as you said, Erin, this would threaten prison time, up to five years of prison for any state and local officials who do so -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Sunlen, thank you very much.

So, now, let's talk to the person the bill was named after, that King is threatening to send to jail, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, in her first national TV interview since President Trump started attacking her for her immigration policies.

Mayor, thanks so much for your time.

So, now, you've got this legislation named after you, threatening to put you in the cooler. What's your reaction?

MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF (D), OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: Listen, I'm not going to let the bullies in Washington, D.C. deter me from doing what I know is right for my community.

In Oakland, we're very clear about what our values are. We value our immigrant communities. We value diversity. And we will not let anyone intimidate us. We will not apologize for those values.

BURNETT: So, if legislation like this were to pass, you could be going to prison. Is that something you're willing to do, to stand up for what you believe in?

SCHAAF: So it is not possible that legislation like that could be legal. Sanctuary city policies are legal policies. They've been well-researched, they're within the confines of what local and state jurisdictions are allowed to do. That is part of the beauty of American democracy, a balance between local, state, and federal power. And I can tell you that I know a lot more about what makes my community safe than a Congress member from Iowa.

BURNETT: So, the president of course has picked on you personally, and that's why Congressman King went after you, right? At the California sanctuary state round table last week, President Trump said you should be investigated for obstruction of justice. And I want to play that for you, Mayor Schaaf.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You had the mayor of Oakland, where I read that you had a thousand people, Tom, you know this because it was your deal -- had a thousand people together. Many of these were illegals. They were criminals. They were all sorts of -- it was work.

And she informed them, and they all fled, or most of them fled. And that whole operation that took a long time to put together -- I mean, you talk about obstruction of justice. I would recommend that you look into obstruction of justice for the mayor of Oakland, California, Jeff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: All right. So you heard him there, mayor, saying you warned these people, a thousand of them. They all fled, most of them fled -- those are his words, said you should be investigated for obstruction of justice. What do you say?

SCHAAF: So, I think what speaks volumes to how factually accurate that statement could possibly be is the fact that ICE's own spokesperson James Schwab resigned from his position because he refused to tell lies like that. That is a ridiculous statement that has come from our president. And it's just further political theater and a distraction from actually having the real and necessary but difficult conversation about how to fix our broken immigration system.

BURNETT: And, look, they are necessary, and they are difficult. I just want to make sure I understand, when you say what's factually inaccurate in there. Is it obstruction of justice or is it that he says that you warned a thousand people and they all fled?

SCHAAF: The accusation that I personally, that the warning that I gave, which was very general, which was really just advising people about their legal rights, and the resources, as well as the responsibilities that they have -- the idea that that caused any amount of people to not be apprehended as part of that operation just cannot be true.

BURNETT: The president, of course Congressman King, Attorney General Sessions, they all agree on one crucial thing. They say that by tipping off immigrants, officials like you are putting law enforcement officials' lives in danger, right? That then they're going to know they're coming into the community. That this can cause a loss of life for law enforcement.

Are you sure that they're wrong? Is that fear-mongering, or is there truth in it?

SCHAAF: Well, there has been a lot of fear-mongering by this administration. ICE itself confirmed that there were no injuries at all during this operation, to ICE agents.

[19:35:04] The information I gave was very general in nature, no specifics. I do not see how it could have possibly endangered any law enforcement officials.

BURNETT: As you say, significant that ICE would confirm there were no injuries. Before we go, Mayor Schaaf, I have to ask you about something else the

president has said, and, you know, this is a controversial thing. He's come under criticism for it, but he's owning it, calling members of the violent MS-13 gang animals.

Today, the White House tripled down on that. They actually put out a press release, and titled it, quote: what you need to know about the violent animals of MS-13. The president has repeatedly stood by those words.

You obviously have seen this. Is that a fair use of the word?

SCHAAF: I believe that this president's language is racist. It is fear-mongering and it is trying to distract the American people from the job that elected officials are supposed to do, and that's improve the lives of the people we represent, instead of casting blame and dispersion against a very vulnerable population.

That's what we're doing here in Oakland. Oakland is a very proud, diverse, sanctuary city. Our crime has gone down over the last few years. We are working on safety by lifting up our children, getting them college degrees. That's the work that politicians should be doing, not trying to blame others for their own failings.

BURNETT: Mayor Schaaf, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it tonight.

SCHAAF: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next, new details about another Trump tower meeting that we've learned about. Donald Trump Jr. was there, foreign officials were there. Why is Donald Trump Jr. always at the center of these sorts of things?

And the potentially historic meeting between Trump and Kim Jong-un, now increasing doubt in the White House that it will happen. Why?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:40:37] BURNETT: Tonight, Donald Trump Jr. at the center of another controversial Trump Tower meeting during the campaign. This time, according to "The New York Times," he met with an emissary for two Arab Sheikhs and an Israeli social media specialist. The meeting organized by the founder of the security firm Blackwater Erik Prince. It's the just the latest in the string of controversies surrounding President Trump's eldest son.

Tom Foreman is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENNT (voice-over): Another week, another explosive headline alleging a campaign meeting just months before the election with foreign powers eager to defeat Hillary Clinton and once again, "The New York Times" says Donald Trump Jr. was in the middle. SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA), SELECT INTEL COMMITTEE: What part of the

basic tenets of our democracy is that you don't have foreign powers intervene does he not understand?

FOREMAN: The times story says that a top Trump booster and emissary for two Arab princes and an Israel attended. And the lawyer for the president's oldest child says Don Jr. does really a meeting about a social media or marketing plan. However, he was not interested and that was the end of it.

But not so fast, say Democrats.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Certainly, if it's for the purpose of obtaining help from a foreign power friendly or unfriendly, during the election is a big problem.

FOREMAN: For Team Trump, a bigger problem may be Don Jr.'s flare for controversy. That meeting with Russians over the same summer, he was the one who agreed to it after being promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. And he e-mailed, if it's what you say, I love it.

DONALD TRUMP, JR., PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON: This is pre like Russia fever. This is pre-Russia mania.

FOREMAN: He would later tell conflicting sister conflicting sister conflicting stories about the meeting but insist it was inconsequential.

TRUMP: And I didn't know there was any credibility. I didn't know if there's anything behind it. I can't vouch for the information. Now, someone sent me an e-mail.

I can't help what someone sends me.

FOREMAN: He made a business trip to India earlier this year to sell luxurious apartments with buyers promised private meetings, ethics watchdogs howled.

WALTER SHAUB, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS: So, he's over there, asking people to spend money on properties that are branded with the president's own name.

FOREMAN: But Don Jr. brushed off their complaints, too. Indeed, he trolls his foes on Twitter just as his father does, mocking Democrats, the media, and saying, how long will the leftist witch-hunt against Donald Trump continue?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: As for the president, he has simply raged over the way his oldest son is being scrutinized, saying this latest story of another meeting with foreigners is just part of an expensive, boring witch- hunt and insisting, quote, things are getting ridiculous -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Tom Foreman, thank you. And next, the White House now increasingly skeptical that this will

ever happen, that it will ever be more than a split screen, the president and Kim Jong-un. Deep in the White House, concern that summit may not occur. We've got breaking details on that ahead.

And what could be an historic election in Georgia tomorrow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Help me become the next governor of the great state of Georgia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:47:23] BURNETT: Breaking news, new signs that the much anticipated summit between President Trump and the North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un may not happen.

Administration aides in the White House telling CNN they are growing increasingly skeptical about the June 12th summit.

Keep in mind, North Korea pulled out of talks with South Korea last week, threatened to pull out of the summit with the United States if the U.S. insists North Korea dismantle its nuclear program, and, of course, denuclearization as President Trump calls it, as been a prerequisite on the American side.

OUTFRONT now, the former congressman from Pennsylvania, Charlie Dent, making his first appearance tonight as a CNN political commentator.

And, Congressman, we're thrilled to have you. There's so many things as you and I were talking about in the commercial that we could talk about, but this breaking news, I know obviously you've spent time over there, you're very familiar with all the moves that are anticipated with the U.S. troops. But, obviously, this is coming from inside the White House, that they're increasingly skeptical.

Is this posturing, or do you think its possible this meeting is delayed or doesn't happen at all together?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Erin, I do think that there's a possibility the summit could at least be delayed. That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. There's a lot of work that goes into a summit.

And I thought Henry Kissinger taught us, we don't have summits until we have something of substance to announce. I don't know that we're there yet, but we're in a better position. The dialogue is important. The dialogue is important.

President Moon of South Korea has a lot of message. Certainly, President Trump does. He's certainly raised expectations very high. But --

BURNETT: Right.

DENT: So, it's a little bit of a rocky road right now, but --

BURNETT: But, you know, this point that you make about, you don't have a summit until you have something to announce. The president seems to have, from the way he's positioned it, positioned it very differently, right?

In other words, you guys all do whatever you're going to do, but then I'm going in the room, Kim Jong-un, he and I are going to work it out. But this isn't the kind of thing that you work out in one meeting or two-day meeting or whatever, right? To your point, it's got to be done.

DENT: Well, maybe at the very least at the summit. Maybe they could announce some kind of framework for future dialogue, because look, we're still operating on a ceasefire, that's where we are on the Korean peninsula right now. We just have a ceasefire. There's never been a formal treaty.

There's been a lot of issues to deal with beyond the nuclear issue from chemical and biological weapons, to the thousands of artillery shells that are pointed, aimed directly at the city of Seoul. So, there's a lot there to deal with.

BURNETT: All right. So, you're saying not surprised if it's delayed or does not happen is the bottom line. So, the president, of course, though has said many things about Kim Jong-un, fire and fury and, you know, annihilating him among that.

But recently, it's been different, right? He's excellent. He's honorable. And when he greeted the three Americans who had been released from prison in North Korea, here's what the president said about Kim Jong-un.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're willing to do a lot and he's willing to I think do a lot also.

[19:50:03] And I think we'll actually have a good relationship, assuming we have the meeting and assuming something comes of it. And he'll get protections that will be very strong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: We're willing to do a lot. He's going to get protections that are very strong. That's giving a lot up front before you even have something.

Did he go too far?

DENT: Well, I think the president has behaved in a very unorthodox way on this whole Korea initiative. That said, I don't think we're in a terrible place. I wouldn't have used terms like fire and fury, I certainly wouldn't have called Kim Jong-un honorable. That said, I think I want to commend the president for at least engaging in a dialogue.

South Korean President Moon wants to see something happen, the Chinese want to see something happen, so we are at a better place. Now, I'm not that optimistic that we're actually going to see a real result here, but we're better off now than where we were.

So again, there's a lot ahead of us. And I wouldn't raise expectations as high as the president has, but I do think we're in a better place.

BURNETT: Do you think that he cares too much about this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you deserve the Nobel Prize do you think?

TRUMP: Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it.

CROWD: Nobel, Nobel, Nobel.

TRUMP: That's very nice, thank you. That's very nice. Nobel. I just want to the job done.

REPORTER: What do you think you have to achieve in the upcoming summit to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: He wants it. How much will that drive him?

DENT: Well, I suspect that's in the back of his mind or maybe in the front of his mind. I think it's far too premature to be talking about Nobel Prizes.

We have a long way to go. I mean, look, they have to work out what the issues are going to be discussed. I mean, denuclearization, we have -- you know, we have -- I think I know what denuclearization means. It means that the North Koreans give up their nukes. I'm not sure that's what Kim Jong-un thinks denuclearization it means. What about the nuclear umbrella?

There's so many issues. We're so far away from, you know, handing awards. I think we ought to just stop the talk of it right now, and just get down to the serious business of setting up a real negotiation and achieving something of substance. Hey, if somebody gets a Nobel Prize out of it, all the better.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Congressman Dent. And welcome again. We're thrilled to have you.

And looking to make history in the Deep South.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No she has ever been governor, but I intend to change that this year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:56:20] BURNETT: As Georgia voters head to the polls tomorrow to decide the Democratic nominee for governor, Hillary Clinton is wading into the race, recording a robocall for candidate Stacey Abrams. Abrams would break new ground if elected as the first African-American female governor in Georgia history.

Kyung Lah is OUTFRONT with our special series, "Born to Run."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STACEY ABRAMS (D), DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GEORGIA GOVERNOR: And I'm running for office not for me but for the young people who deserve better from their elected officials.

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She's the Democratic candidate for governor. But in the heart of rural Georgia, a Republican stronghold, watch Stacey Abrams.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good luck.

ABRAMS: Thank you.

LAH: Pose for photos, receive hugs, even tears. And if you haven't noticed yet, every supporter here is white.

LAH (on camera): We're in Trump country.

ABRAMS: Oh, yes.

LAH: Do you think that you can win here?

ABRAMS: So, here's the thing, I've got to win Georgia. That means I've got to turn out more Democrats everywhere.

We're in Trump country. But here's the thing. They're driving around, we're doing something.

LAH (voice-over): Abrams determined to pull off something no black woman as ever managed to do in Georgia or the entire country.

LAH: A she has never been governor in this state.

ABRAMS: No. No she has ever been governor, but I intend to change that this year.

LAH: Trying to crack the ceiling in a place that once shut her out. In 1991 as her high school's valedictorian, Abrams was invited to the governor's mansion.

(on camera): What happened on that trip? ABRAMS: The security guard refused to allow us inside. He said that

it was a private event. This man who had this power in front of the most powerful place in Georgia, telling me I don't belong there, and that's resonated for me for the last 20 years.

Help me become the next governor of the great state of Georgia.

LAH (voice-over): Abrams plans to do that by taking the blue wave on overdrive, doubling down on the Democratic base -- women and minorities from black voters.

To Latinos and white progressives with an emphasis on direct grassroots and volunteer contact, in every corner of Georgia.

ABRAMS: You cannot ignore those who already agree with you but feel like you don't respond or reflect their values. We cannot win by pretending to be something we're not.

Don't tell me we can't spread progressive messages.

LAH: The other Stacey in the Democratic race disagrees.

STACEY EVANS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GEORGIA GOVERNOR: My opponent, on the other hand, thinks you just focus on Democrats. If we just get all Democrats out, we'll win. In a state like Georgia, I don't think that's enough. I don't think the math adds up. I don't think it's healthy for democracy.

LAH: Stacey Evans is also vying for the Democratic nomination, would also make history as Georgia's first woman governor, but Evans believes she needs to expand the base in a year of Republicans souring on Trump.

EVANS: I'm Stacey Evans. And as governor --

LAH: Investing in TV early and heavily.

EVANS: I think we should take our progressive message to persuade those that are living in suburban communities, that maybe have tended to vote Republican, that there is something for them on the Democratic side that's going to make their lives better.

LAH: Two Staceys forging two different paths across this southern state, both driven by the same vision, a woman in Georgia finally leading the way.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAH: This race is garnering significant national interest, not just as a test of Democratic tactics but, Erin, you mentioned Hillary Clinton. We've also heard from Bernie Sanders as well as Kamala Harris. Them -- they are endorsing Stacey Abrams, but from where Stacey Evans sits, Erin, she says she's feeling quite positive.

BURNETT: All eyes will be on that race tomorrow. And, Kyung, thank you so much. The latest in Kyung's series "Born to Run." And thanks to all of you for joining us.

"ANDERSON" starts now.