Return to Transcripts main page
DOJ Announces Charges Against 12 Russian Officers Just Three Days Before Trump-Putin Summit; President Trump's Attack Beyond Belief; Ronald Reagan's Out, Donald Trump's In; Trump In The United Kingdom; First Lady's Wardrobe; CNN Original Series; CNN Heroes. Aired 11-12a ET
Aired July 13, 2018 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. It is 11:00 p.m. here on the East Coast. We're live with all the new developments tonight. A dozens Russian intelligence agents, member of Vladimir Putin's military are now under federal indictment for hacking Hillary Clinton and top aides during the 2016 election. The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, his team has brought 191 criminal charges against 32 individuals and three companies.
Today's charges coming just three days before President Trump's one on one meeting with Russian president, Vladimir Putin. A meeting, which Trump speculated will be the easiest of his overseas trip. Well, a meeting many say Trump should scat in the wake of today's indictment. And note this, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein said he briefed the President a few days ago. That makes Trump's multiple comments about wanting a friendship with Russia a little perplexing. Your Deputy Attorney General briefs you about a dozen intelligence agents who actively worked to undermine in American election and your harshest rebuke to the Kremlin is calling Putin a competitor.
Well, compare that to what Dan Coats, Trump's director of national intelligence said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor, no question. And they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And listen to what Rod Rosenstein said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROD ROSENSTSEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Free and fair elections, always hard. They'll will also be adversary that seek to exacerbate our divisions and try to confuse, divide and concur us.
(END VIDEO CLIP) LEMON: Has Russia already succeeded? Let's talk about that. I want
to bring in now CNN Crime and Justice Reporter, Shimon Prokupecz, also Jack Quinn, who was White House counsel to President Clinton, and CNN Contributor, Garrett Graff, the author of "The Threat Matrix: Inside Robert Mueller's FBI and the War on Global Terror." Good evening, glad to have all of you on.
Jack, I am going to start with you. We are talking about serious charges, conspiracy, money laundering, ID fraud, and yet, these 12 Russian operatives will likely never see a U.S. courtroom. What was Mueller's purpose in laying out like he did? Is he sending a message laying this out like he did? Is he sending a message to anyone?
JACK QUINN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, I think there are two parts to answer that. Number one, he was certainly sending a message to Russians and to the actors involved, sure, likelihood of there being extradited and tried is virtually little. That said, the government not infrequently will identify foreign actors who break our law, shame them, and make that public as a way of acting as a deterrent.
Secondly, this set of indictments is an important part of Mueller's completing his mandate to determine whether there was Russian interference in the election in 2016, and whether in connection with any such interference, there was coordination with the Trump campaign. These 2indictments today were huge. They were huge, because they are conclusive now, I think, particularly together with the first indictments on the point that, number one, Russia interfered in the election, no ifs, ands or buts about it. That is the conclusion that the Special Counsel has come to. And secondly that interference had as its object, trothing the election toward one candidate, President Trump and against the other candidate, Mrs. Clinton.
LEMON: Yes, Garry, you've written about Mueller, do you think the timing of these indictments, just a few days before the President is set to meet one-on one with Vladimir Putin, do you think this is coincidental or do you think Mueller wanted this out?
GARRETT GRAFF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's hard to say. We have known that this information was likely coming. The Wall Street Journal reported this early as November. That the U.S. had identified specific Russian intelligence officers that they were prepared to charge, but there are some reasons to believe that this is sort of consistent with the way that Mueller has been doing these indictments. We know he has been working for a long time building a case that we haven't yet seen. And we know that his indictments have been coming down traditionally on Friday.
[23:05:10] So, it's possible, but it is hard to not read into this. That this is landing just hours before the President meets with Vladimir Putin. And, you know, just to pick up and emphasize one of the things that Jack said, it's not that Russia interfered with the election, it is sort of one of the things this is the Russian government, the Russian military interfered and attacked the 2016 election. I mean, we've had plenty of evidence that Russians have been involved, but this is the military and this is the government here working on behalf of a foreign nation to undermine our Democratic process.
LEMON: Yes. Shimon, remember when Donald Trump asked the Russian to get Clinton's e-mails? Here he is, this is July 27, 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Russia if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, Shimon, we're learning now that the Russians got the message loud and clear.
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, Don. Certainly they did. This indictment talks about that just hours after the President said that. According to the indictment the Russians sort of launched an attack that they wanted to try to get into the Hillary Clinton company e-mails. And they did this spear fishing attacks that is that they used e-mails to try and get folks who are associated to Clinton campaigns to click on links in order for Russians to get access to the accounts.
And here's what the indictments said about that. It says that the conspirators, the Russians spearfish individuals affiliated with the Clinton campaign through the summer of 2016. Then they say that for example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Russians attempted after hours to spearfish for the first time e-mail accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office.
At or around the same time they also targeted 76 e-mail addresses at the domain for the Clinton campaign. Certainly significant, Don. That what it shows is just how organized, if we talked a lot about how sophisticated these groups of hackers were, this Russian, military hackers were. What made them so sophisticated is partially how organized they were.
And that they were tracking a lot of this information, they knew what to look for, they know who to look for. They knew how to get access to some of these people, how to e-mail some of those folks. That was that made this so sophisticated. It was the organization and it is also the persistence of this group and trying to get in to the e-mail accounts of some of these people.
This is 76 people, whom we know according to the indictment, that over 300 people they had spearfished attacked over 300 people between DMC, the DCCC, and of course the Hillary Clinton campaign. All in an effort in trying to get inside these accounts, these servers, these emails to try and pull more information, more dirt on that they could on the Hillary Clinton campaign.
LEMON: Jack, we've been saying all along that collusion is not a legal term, but in a sense, was a collusion just out in the open for all to see? QUINN: There is s sort of conscious parallelism that is the legal
term that flies in the different area of the law. But, look, there was no collusion in this set of indictments about whether there was some collusion, but the paragraph that Shimon just spoke of, paragraph 44 in the indictment is incredibly meaningful. Tying together the statement that the, then candidate Trump made that morning, and the action of the Russian intelligence people who were undertaking this intrusion into the campaign.
The linkage of those two things is not in there by any accident. I will say by the way, for as sophisticated and diligent and persistent and effort as humongous describe on the part of the Russians one of the things that come through in this set of indictments is how incredibly sophisticated, persistent and determined the operation that Mr. Mueller is running is, in terms of faring out all of the actors involved here. And I think, eventually, if there were any Americans who were part of this conspiracy, we will know about it.
LEMON: Aside from the question about why, you know, the President is only calling Vladimir Putin the worse thing, he is calling him as a competitor, Garrett, why aren't we hearing more outrage from the White House when we're talking about attack and attack on the United States?
GRAFF: Yes, that to me was really striking in Sarah Huckabee Sander's comments today.
[23:10:02] Were basically, she echoed what Rudy Giuliani was saying which was that there's no collusion in this indictment. Were as the correct answer should have been clearly, we are outraged on the attack of the American democracy and as such, we are canceling Monday's summit with Vladimir Putin. I mean, remember Rod Rosenstein said he briefed President Trump personally on these charges, that they were forthcoming this week. And as you said, it makes it all the more crazy that Donald Trump has been insulting this investigation over the last couple of days.
And including yesterday, you know, it puts in stark relief that House GOP 12-hour marathon attack on FBI agent, Peter Strzok, who helped lead this very investigation that resulted in this incredible set of charges against the Russian military today.
LEMON: Yes. Shimon, and you're reporting about U.S. Intelligence capturing Russians name in the indictment, congratulating each other over this type of campaign, what is that about?
PROKUPECZ: Yes. This is pretty short and this has been something that is been known for quite some time and sort of helped in the assessment that the intelligence community made at the time about Russia and their involvement. It is interesting, because it shows really just how much the U.S. was able to get inside this Russian operation and monitor them.
And what the intelligence showed is that they were celebrating the success of this operation. You know, at some point during the campaign, we don't know exactly when, but there was communications where they were happy. They were like, wow we were actually successful in being able to do this. And then also, there was celebration over the victory. The fact that the President, that Trump won the election. And so they used some of this information in kind of building their assessment and building their intelligence to put the focus on this group, and the belief that they were behind this hack.
LEMON: Yes. Thank you all. I appreciate it.
When we comeback, why this week shows that Donald Trump is turning his back on Ronald Reagan's approach to foreign policy, and why his base loves it. Fareed Zakaria is here to discuss.
[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: The President insisting in public today, that he did not criticize British Prime Minister Theresa May just hours after he did exactly that in a newspaper interview, which was recorded on audio tape. So, I want to bring in now Fareed Zakaria, the host of Fareed Zakaria GPS. It's very interesting what he calls the fake news, then he, I mean, he said exactly what he said on the tape that nonetheless, good evening. What an extraordinary week. First, President Trump criticized NATO leaders in Brussels. Then the U.K., he slam British Prime Minister Theresa May's policies. You say Trump is applying the art of New York hustle in international relations. Explain that Fareed.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: Well, if you think about it, you know, what he is doing is puzzling. Because he makes up facts, he lies, he invents crisis and pretends that he solved them. You know, for example, he goes to NATO and says, you guys are not doing enough. Then he comes back and says, I've gotten them to agree to spend more on defense. None of which is true. The 2 percent target that he has been trying to bang on about for NATO was set by Barack Obama.
It was Obama who asked the NATO countries to spend 2 percent on defense. It was Obama's, Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates who in his farewell address said, if you guys don't do this, support in America for NATO is going to drop. They were very tough on it. The criticism of Germany for its pipeline deal with Russia was again made by the Obama administration.
So this are all things where he is continuing policies, but he makes it out like it's his inventions. That he has come up with this idea that he is arm wrestled these people to the ground and extracted these major concessions. All of which just made up. And so, that is why I call it the New York hustle, because it is sort of, you claim you got a great deal when you just kind of went in and bought retail.
LEMON: Off the rack. It's amazing, I watch his body language, and I just, I am plummet and like, what is he doing. I mean -- anyways, for me it's embarrassing.
ZAKARIA: The thing not to underestimate, Don, is the degree to which, if you say something often enough and loudly enough, people begin to buy it. So, you just keep saying, I am amazing, I've gotten this great deal. I've gotten this achieved. You know, after a while there's a very interesting phenomenon here where he knows that -- he almost anchors your perceptions.
And everyone thinks he is exaggerating, but they say, OK, so maybe it's 21 percent less than that. So maybe he didn't get a great deal, he got a good deal. That is why I think you have the wild exaggeration, the outright false, because he creates this alternate reality where everyone says, OK, maybe it's not quite bad, but there's something here. He always talk about his net worth, he always says he is worth $10 billion.
LEMON: There's absolutely no proof of that, do you know that?
ZAKARIA: Yes, but maybe he is worth $2 or $3 billion. You know, what I mean, it sort of sets the bar very high and that is what he is doing here. He keeps telling you, he has done the best, greatest negotiations in the history of the world.
LEMON: Yes. But for those of us who just didn't full off the turnips truck, we know the facts and we know what Bob Gates did and we know what the administration did before this. I just want you to listen Fareed to what Hillary Clinton, this is her talking about Trump and NATO. This is during the 2016 campaign. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: You are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO. Do whatever he wants to do. United States has kept the peace through our alliances.
[23:20:01] Donald wants to tear up our alliances. I think it makes the world safer and frankly it makes the United States safer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: She seemed to have predicted the current crises with NATO.
ZAKARIA: Well, what's puzzling everybody in NATO and I was in Europe two weeks ago, and talked to a number of people for the last two days in Europe. What puzzled them most about Donald Trump is he does not seem to be pursuing America's interest. It's not clear what gain there is for America. For the American President to belittle the British Prime Minister at the time when she, you know, she is trying to do these very sensitive negotiations, undermined her credibility and her position.
It doesn't make sense that he would undermined NATO so dissention. Cause people in places like Tolen (ph) and the Baltic Republic to wonder whether America would come to their defense if Russians would attack. Belittle the idea that Putin is a KGB agent at a rally a couple of week ago, he made a mocking -- he mocked those of us in the media who pointed out that Putin was a KGB agent. And he says, Putin is not a KGB agent, he is fine. He is a good guy. So, why is he doing all this? And a number people
wonder whether, you know, there is some real intent here to break up NATO or to undermined, you know, the pillars of western community.
I, myself think, what he is really doing is he is playing to his base. He knows that if he talks about how everyone takes America for granted. The European take America for granted. The Japanese take us for granted on trade. The Chinese are, you know, vesting us on trade. It plays to a certain kind of nationalist protectionist rhetoric that has become the new Republican Party.
LEMON: Yes. This is President Trump what he said earlier today about immigration and Europe. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think that is very much our Germany, I think it's very much other parts of Europe. And I know it's politically not necessarily correct to say that, but I'll say it and I'll say it loud. And I think they better watch themselves, because you are changing culture, you are changing a lot of things. You're changing security, look at what's happening. I mean, you take a look. Look at what's happening to different countries that never had difficulties, never had problems. It's a very sad situation, it is very unfortunate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Never difficult, never had a problem, it's interesting that he said countries that never had difficulties or problems until immigration. Does he know much about the history of Europe? This was a continent that was torn -- that tore itself apart in recent Passover culture, identity, World War II, the holocaust.
ZAKARIA: Yes, the idea that Germany had no problems until they started taking immigrants in, that is news to anyone who has studied 20th century German history. But I think it actually even the factual statement there is just flatly wrong. Germany has benefitted enormously from immigration. Germany will probably have zero percent growth or negative growth if not for the fact that it's taken in large numbers of immigrants over the last 30 or 40 years.
It needs young workers. All of Europe needs young workers. There is an aging society and immigrants of the people who provide those young workers, the drive, the dynamism, and yes, of course, it's been a challenge to integrate, there's no question about that.
But it is important to understand. You can't change this at this point. Europe is already an immigrant society. Europe has as many foreign-born people as the United States does. Parts of Europe like Sweden has more foreign-born than the United States does. And they are trying to make this work. So, again, what purpose does it serve for the President of the United States to walk into these societies, deliver their governments, demean these process of integration.
This is what Europeans are trying to understand. Which is why is he doing this, because it is certainly not helping American security, it's not bolstering confidence in America. It's not making people want to buy American good anymore.
It is having all the opposite effects. If you are looking at polls that had been taken recently in Europe where they ask, do you trust the United States, do you have confidence to the United States, those poll numbers are plummeting down. So why is he doing this? Again, I think he is playing a populous national card, because he believes that his political salvage at home lies in creating and expanding this populous nationalist somewhat racist base within the Party.
There are many strains within it, but what he is trying to do is to fan the flames of cultural resentment. You know, if you think about it, it is bizarre, he has taken the Party of Reagan, which was in favor of free trade. Promoting democracy abroad. --
[23:25:00] LEMON: Can I read a quote from your column? Let me read a quote from your column.
ZAKARIA: Then -- yes.
LEMON: This is -- your column is out and you said Ronald Reagan's out, Donald's in. Right? Donald's in. You said his approach abroad appears to be design in creating new Republican foreign policy that is much closer to the Party's historical roots, distrustful of foreigners, alliance and treaties and in many senses flatly isolationist. Go one, this is back to basics?
ZAKARIA: This is back to basics. So people forget the Republican Party and its roots was quite isolationist, quite nativist, quite protectionist and in fact Robert (inaudible), who was called Mr. Republican the great, Illinois, Ohio Senator in the 1970s voted against NATO. Voted against United States joining NATO and there was a long tradition of isolationism, of wanting quotas so that nonwhites and non-Angelo's couldn't enter the United States. So, in a sense, this returns the Party to that tradition. And what's tragic here is that the great tradition of the Republican Party internationalism, the Reagan tradition of openness to immigration, openness to trade, Brits support for NATO, that is all gone? And what's surprising to me, Don, is the Republican establishment, Republican leaders who all believe in what Reagan set out, who believe American security is strengthened by that, they're all quiet.
They're all quiet while Donald Trump is remaking the Republican Party, he is remaking the country's foreign policy. Si, you know, scraping across Europe leaving bewilderment, dismay and disillusion among the closest allies of the United States. They are all quiet, they all have signed up to the new Trump revolution.
LEMON: Yes. Thank you Fareed Zakaria. Have a great weekend. I will be watching, don't miss Fareed Zakaria GPS, Sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Eastern.
When we comeback, President Trump getting ready to meet with Vladimir Putin, despite calls for him to cancel the summit. But is Trump likely to be out foxed by Putin?
[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: White House insisting today that President Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin won't be scrapped even in the wake of indictments of 12 Russian intelligence agents for election interference. But we now know how President Trump dislikes, we know how much he dislikes prepping for big meetings with world leaders. So how well he do when he sits down with Putin, a former KGB agent?
Here to discuss, two CNN National Security Analysts -- Sam Vinograd is a former senior advisor under President Obama and Steve Hall is a retired chief of CIA Russian operations. We got some big binds here this evening. Thank you very much.
Sam, many top Democrats want President Trump to cancel this meeting. The meeting is still on. Is that a big mistake? Well, not just top Democrats. Some Republicans want to cancel it as well.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: John McCain said earlier he should cancel it. I think he should cancel it, but not just because of these indictments, he was unprepared for this meeting before the indictments came out. What we learned today is that more members of the GRU, the Russia intelligence unit within their military, were involved.
But that doesn't change the fact that Trump had no preparation before he went to Europe to get ready to talk about Syria or arm's control or any of the other issues on the table. He went to NATO, barely talked about Russia. He went to the U.K., barley talked about Russia. And now he's walking to the room by himself with a guy that has years of experience at manipulation and the president is again woefully unprepared.
LEMON: Why? Why is he doing that?
VINOGRAD: He either thinks he knows better. He's smarter than everybody else. We're hearing he's not even bringing his national security advisor --
LEMON: Or he wants to say something to him that --
VINOGRAD: Exactly. What does he not want? A translator to hear? A note-taker to hear? Or his own national security advisor to hear? So he's thinking, OK, I can do this by myself, I know arm's control, I know Syria, and maybe we'll talk about --
LEMON: That's it. I may have been born yesterday, but I still went shopping. I mean, come on. So Steve, here's the top Democrat on intelligence committee on Trump and Putin's one-on-one. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA, VICE CHAIR OF SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I have been concerned for sometime that the president's ad hoc style of going into meetings and winging it is inappropriate, particularly when you're dealing with someone like Vladimir Putin who has been on the world stage for 20 years, former KGB agent. He will come in with his facts, with maps, and I'm afraid that actually the president could be taken advantage of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: You know, Putin is a trained KGB agent with 16 years in the agency. Trump is famously impulsive. What can and should Trump expect sitting across the table from someone like Vladimir Putin?
STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, Don. I think it's a really fascinating question because a lot of thought has been given, OK, is Trump ready? Is he prepared? What are his plans? But it is truly interesting to look at this from the Russia angle. You know, I have been going back and forth in my mind, what is Putin's approach going to be? How is he going to see Trump? Is it going to be Putin the case officer and Trump the asset?
I don't think so. I actually think that Vladimir Putin sees Donald Trump as his American oligarch. You understand that Putin has this whole series of oligarchs in Russia who do what he needs done. He then allows them to get really, really rich. It's a similar type of situation that we have with Donald Trump.
When Donald Trump was having difficulties earlier in his career and no banks would lend him money, a lot of money started to come in from places that were connected to Russia. So, I think, you know, Putin has all sorts of conversations with oligarchs. You got to build another stadium because World Cup soccer is coming and, you know, I'll let you be a rich guy, so I need you to do something for me.
[23:35:03] I think it's going to be a similar, maybe not identical, but a similar dynamic with Donald Trump. Putin knows that he has given him all sorts of money, and I think Donald trump knows that if Putin were to choose to say, choose exactly how he did that or let that leak, it will be very, very bad for Donald Trump.
That's I think is what's going to happen in the quiet part of the meeting where nobody else is around. I don't know if that's going to be said directly or whether it's just going to be left there to be understood. But, you know, that's how I think Putin is going to approach this meeting with his American oligarch.
LEMON: Sam, we were talking about his lack of preparation. What type of prep work normally goes into a meeting like this? How much is prep work and how much is gut?
VINOGRAD: It's mostly prep work. You don't go with your gut when you're dealing with a hostile power. Let's remember, we're under live attack by Russia right now. You're not walking into a friendly meeting. You're walking in -- the president won't say but I will -- to talk to an enemy. You're meeting your attacker.
So under those circumstances, you normally start prepping months in advance. You have situation room meetings where you talk about what you want your agenda to be, and to Steve's point, what the intel analysis is and what your adversary is going to be thinking about you, so how is Putin going to be approaching the meeting. That involves listening to your intelligence committee, listening to your national security adviser, extensive meetings, extensive briefings, and really paying attention to the details on these complex issues. No one wants you to wing it on arm's control. No one wants you to wing in on Syria. You need to know your facts and listen to the experts.
LEMON: Yes. Listen, we know that Kremlin controls the Russian media. The president constantly lies. With just Trump and Putin in the room and neither particularly trustworthy, let's be honest, can we trust reports coming out of that room?
HALL: I don't see how we can. It's really a self-inflicted wound on the part of the president. I mean, he knows that -- he must know that if he goes in one-on-one with Putin and there's no other American there, that his detractors, whether it's in the United States or anywhere else in the world, are going to say, ah, well, we know what that conversation was about, it couldn't been anything good.
So, you know, why do that? It's not going to end well. You don't need a summit to discuss that issues that are out there with regard to Syria or with regard to, for example, missile control. Those are things that can happen at an expert level.
And when you offer up and give Vladimir Putin the present of a summit, you're basically saying, hey, we're on the same level, you're at power, and that is what Putin craves. So it's a win for Putin, and I don't see any win for the United States at all.
LEMON: I got 10 seconds.
VINOGRAD: I actually think it's a smart idea to have a summit when you have a president who has fully read on the details and can deliver a message because Vladimir Putin listens to other heads of state. He is not going to listen at an expert level.
LEMON: Well, good luck with that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it guys. Have a great weekend. When we come back, the president and first lady meeting with the queen today. But did President Trump break protocol? We're going to tell you what he did that has a lot of people up in arms. That's next.
[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: President Trump and the first lady are in Scotland tonight where they will spend the weekend before flying to Helsinki for his summit with Vladimir Putin. But before leaving England, they met with Queen Elizabeth at Windsor Castle. There you see the video right there.
I want to bring now CNN's Royal Commentator, Victoria Arbiter, and Robin Givhan, the fashion critic for "The Washington Post." Good evening. I'm so happy to have both of you here this evening. Lots of questions. So, Victoria, I'm going to start with you because today was the big day for President Trump. All eyes were on him as he met Queen Elizabeth. Did he follow protocol? How did he do?
VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: He actually did pretty well. It's probably the first time I can remember that I've seen Donald Trump appear to be a little nervous. And I think the queen was the one person that he was determined not to offend. There were a lot of people speculations, that he was late to meet the queen, he was not.
Royal time operates with military stick (ph) precision. So he was due at 5:00 p.m., at 4:59 that motorcade pulled in. He did choose not to bow to the queen. Melania didn't curtsy. As a foreign head of state, he's certainly not required. Was it been a nice gesture? Yes. But certainly the queen must have been offended by it.
LEMON: There was this moment that while they were touring the guards where she sort of bobbing and weaving to walk with him, I think we have a video, she fell a few steps behind the president before -- before walking side by side. What do you make of that moment?
ARBITER: That was a little awkward. Yes, it looked like Mr. Trump was about to sort of start walking (ph) and inspect the honor guards on his own, and the queen was sort of dodging (ph) behind him. She is only 5'4" so she was very little, sort of dodging (ph)behind him. But then he stopped in place almost like a robot as if he had programmed to stop, waited for her to join him at his side and then she just directs him through the rest of it.
LEMON: Robin, I want to get your observations on this. We know the president said that he was proud to be introducing Melania to the queen. They certainly looked like it in this photo. But the queen, maybe not so much.
ROBIN GIVHAN, FASHION CRITIC, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Well, I would not want to put words in the queen's mouth, but I think that she looked like she was doing something that she was very accustomed to doing, and she looked like it was sort of (INAUDIBLE) so to speak. And she didn't look all that excited about it, but she looked absolutely polite.
LEMON: Yes. Listen, President Trump has made some cringeworthy moments or comments when it comes to royal women. He once boasted that he could have sex quite honestly, he said that with Princess Diana.
[23:44:59] And when photographs of the topless Kate Middleton were published in the tabloids back in 2012, here is what he tweeted, he said, Kate Middleton is great, but she shouldn't be sunbathing in the nude. Only herself to blame. And then the second tweet said, who wouldn't take Kate's picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing? Come on, Kate.
Victoria, do you think the queen is aware of these remarks and how do you think she feels about it?
ARBITER: She is definitely aware. The queen is very steep. Nothing gets past her. She is aware of the protests in London today as well. I'm sure she was horrified by these remarks as she would have been by the "Access Hollywood" tape. She would have been aware of that too.
But the queen's job today was to put on a great show of entertainment. She was there to provide a day that the Trumps will remember forever. It's unlikely the two of them will meet the queen again. And so really her job was to just put on the show to make them welcome, to smooth over the waters so that they left having had a lovely experience.
LEMON: Robin, it sounds like you're agreeing with that.
GIVHAN: Yes, I think that's absolutely the case. I think that in many ways, the first lady was there doing the same thing. She was there to present a gracious, classy, and elegant face for the American people. On this trip, she didn't have any sort of public words but her presence was very symbolic.
GIVHAN: And I think that she approached that role in a very thoughtful and meticulous way.
LEMON: Let's talk about this. I want to talk about your piece now because today because you write about Melania Trump on this trip. The headline is very interesting, Robin. You said, nothing else Melania Trump wears will ever be matter again. You referred to that Zara jacket she wore to visit the children at the border, sprayed with "I really don't care, do you?" How does that carry over to this trip, you think?
GIVHAN: I think after wearing a jacket like that, which we were told to take at face value and not to read anything into it, I think then you have to constantly say, well, if she doesn't really care, then, you know, why should we take to heart anything that she does publicly?
And part of that certainly has to do with the way that she uses clothes and symbolism, the choices that she made. I mean, I think one of her most astute choices was in wearing Calvin Klein in Belgium. It's an American brand. It's an iconic brand. But at the moment, the creative director (ph) is a Belgian designer and I think there was real residence there. He talks a lot about the American dream in his work.
And yet for all of the nuance and subtexts in that choice, we were told very loudly, I don't really care. And, I think that it leaves us wondering, well, what kind of soft diplomacy, what kind of fashion diplomacy are you actually trying to engage in, and how should we take your presence there?
LEMON: How does that play overseas, Robin, especially in England with the "I don't really care" and her fashion choice? Does she set soft- diplomacy?
ARBITER: People were horrified. Melania Trump is using her fashion in much the same way the royal family does. When Meghan shows up -- she meets (ph) the royal family, but already she went to Ireland this week, she arrived in Dublin, she was wearing Irish green. So they use their fashion to pay tribute, to send the message because they often don't have a voice to do that.
So Melania wearing that jacket, I think everyone in the U.K. reacted as they did here. Their mind was blown that she would do something so insensitive when she's known for using her fashion to be her voice.
LEMON: Other first ladies, Robin, quickly, if you can answer this, they have had unpopular (ph) husbands, but is this -- is she in a whole new unique position, Melania Trump?
GIVHAN: She is in a unique position because her husband is so polarizing. But she also has a unique opportunity and that is that she could use her position and use the symbolism of that position to try and mend some of those separations and try to pull people together.
LEMON: Yes. Robin Givhan and Victoria Arbiter, thank you. I really appreciate it.
ARBITER: Thank you.
LEMON: We'll be right back.
[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: The "History of Comedy" is back with Steve Martin, Lily Tomlin, Sean Hayes, Mo'Nique and more. Here's a preview.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Chemistry is the main special sauce on a comedy team.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's one guy who is out of control and one guy trying to say calm down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The theme of sex in comedy is like there is a huge flowchart and everything leads to sex.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sex was always taboo and those walls have been torn down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything I needed to learn about comedy, I learned watching "Warner Brothers" cartoons.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You get so many chances to be funny in animation, writing, voice talent, animation, boom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Comedians don't have a great mortality rate. We lose a lot of people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When we lose a comedian, I feel it's more personal because I know them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's really one of the highest forms of comedy, when you can be (INAUDIBLE) and just as funny as if the jokes (ph) were dirty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sketches are really fun way to talk about the culture with a quick turnout.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You just show up on set and you just roll. No rehearsal, no discussion. You just roll and turnout to laugh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): "History of Comedy," starting Sunday at 10:00 on CNN.
LEMON: Now meet a CNN hero. In Anaheim, California, a chef named Bruno Serato owns a successful high-end restaurant. For more than a decade, this Italian chef's favorite customers have been the hungry kids who receive his free pasta dinners every night. Seven years ago, Bruno was honored as a Top 10 CNN hero. But last year, tragedy struck.
[23:55:00] He responded in true heroic fashion.
BRUNO SERATO, CNN HERO: It's my mission, feeding children that are hungry. But February 4th, 2017, at 4:00 o'clock in the morning, I get the phone call that my restaurant was on fire. You see your restaurant which you love. Thirty years go in flame and ashes. I have no more kitchen. I cannot feed the kids anymore. But a miracle happened.
How many kids love pasta?
I didn't stop feeding the kids. Fifteen months later, we doubled the kids.
LEMON: So how did Chef Bruno turned tragedy into triumph? Go to CNNHeroes.com to find out.
You can get the full story and nominate someone you know to be a CNN hero.
Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.
[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)