Return to Transcripts main page
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Former Natl Security Adviser Michael Flynn Worried About Legal Exposure Of His Son Both Under Scrutiny By Special Counsel; New CNN Poll: Confidence, Trust In Pres. Trump Down; Dems Sweep State-Wide, Many Local Elections; Report: Weinstein Hired Ex-Mossad Agents To Get Information On His Accusers, Reporters; VP Pence Meets With Survivors, Victims' Families; 8 Members Of One Family Among The 25 Killed. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 8, 2017 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:18] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: We begin this hour with breaking news. Multiple sources telling CNN that Michael Flynn, the president's former national security adviser, is worried about the legal fate of his son Michael G. Flynn. Russia Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating both. The question tonight is he also squeezing the son to get the father's cooperation? Our Chief National Security Adviser Jim Sciutto broke the story. He joins us now.
So, Jim, explain the latest on the concerns that Michael Flynn has about his son.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: So here's what we're learning. Multiple sources familiar with the matter say that Flynn has expressed concern about the potential legal exposure of his son Michael Flynn Jr., who like his father is, we know, under scrutiny by the Special Council Robert Mueller. Flynn's concern as you mentioned, Anderson, could be a factor into decision about how to respond to Mueller's ongoing investigation, which is both into Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign as well as the business dealings of key Trump campaign advisers. I'm told as well that Flynn's wife Lori shares his concerns about their son's possible legal exposure.
COOPER: What are you learning about the legal issues that both he and his son could be facing?
SCIUTTO: So this is revealing. I've spoken with two witnesses interviewed by special counsel investigators and they tell me that the questions regarding Flynn focus on his and his son's business dealings, including specifically their firm's reporting of income from work overseas, something known as the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARA. It requires those acting as agents for foreign entities, either countries or companies, to publicly disclose their relationships with those companies and what kind of financial compensation they received.
To be clear, Flynn Jr. he served as his father's chief of staff. He was a top aide actively involved in his father's consulting and lobbying work at their firm which was known as the Flynn Intel Group, and that included joining his father on some overseas trips. One of which was to Moscow in 2015. December, when Flynn --you may remember dined with the Russia President Vladimir Putin, this was at a gala held by RT, the Russian Television Network. But it's not just Russia, Flynn Sr. also under legal scrutiny by Mueller's team for undisclosed lobbying during the campaign on behalf of the Turkish government, including Flynn's alleged participation into discussions about the idea of forcibly removing a Turkish cleric who has been living in exile here in the U.S., in Pennsylvania. I should note that in the past a spokesman for Flynn has denied that those discussions occurred.
COOPER: Jim Sciutto, thanks very much. Jim I think I gave you a new title, you our chief national security correspondent, not adviser.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Not yet.
COOPER: Not sure why I said adviser. I don't know what that means. Thanks, Jim.
Joining us now is House Intelligence Committee member Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell. Congressman, thanks for being with us. What do you make of this new CNN reporting? Do you believe that General Flynn would have reason to be concerned not just about his son but also about himself?
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: He should be worried, yes, Anderson. If he were the only one who had gone to Moscow during the campaign and had talked to the Russian ambassador during the transition period and promised that sanctions were going to go away, maybe you could call this a coincidence, but now that we see a multiplicity of other people on the Trump campaign with undisclosed Russian contacts, the jig is up. We are on to this. And it's not going to get any better. And the best thing he and his son can do is just to be truthful and forthcoming about what their contacts were and what the president knew.
COOPER: I'm wondering what you make of the pace of the Mueller investigation. You know, there are some president's supporters who say, you know, that it might stop with Manafort and Gates with the indictments and Papadopoulos with the plea deal that nothing else may come of it or that it's nearing the end.
SWALWELL: You know, I actually read the Papadopoulos deal as something that should really concern them. Because if you look at the timeline, they went to Papadopoulos in January, he gave them a bs story. They went back to him in February, he stuck to the lie. They took a couple of months to gather evidence and confronted him again in July after they pulled him off a plane. And this time the evidence was overwhelming. And he found religion and told them the truth. Think that shows, one, that these individuals are willing to lie about their contacts with Russia, but, two, that the FBI and the Department of Justice are determined to get to the bottom of it. So that should send a chill, I think, to the Trump team but also show them that if they have something to hide, that it's very likely that they're going to find it. COOPER: We've seen the transcript of your committee's recent kind of epically long and unusual hearing with Carter Page. Do you have any better idea of where he fits into all of this?
SWALWELL: Well, he actually fits in the same manner that George Papadopoulos fits, in that he tried to arrange a meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. He went over to Russia after telling Jeff Sessions and other members of the campaign. No one expressed objection and he came back and gave them a report. He didn't just walk around the red square. He met with the deputy prime minister of Russia. He also met with individuals from Gazprom and Rosneft, Russia energy group members. And this was also part of what was alleged in the dossier.
[21:05:11] And, you know, also interesting, Anderson, a month after the election he told the committee he had no work, no sources of income, but on his own dime went over to Russia in December of 2016 and again was meeting in Russia with Russian bankers and scholars. And then went over to London and again met with Russian bankers. This is interesting because who else went to London? George Papadopoulos went to London and met with a professor and a Russian intelligence service individual.
COOPER: Finally, you are obviously on the Judiciary Committee. You noted on Twitter today that every Republican member on that committee voted against an amendment that you proposed regarding who in Congress would be notified and how soon about any election interference. I wonder why you think the amendment failed.
SWALWELL: We're updating the foreign surveillance act and our ability to surveil individuals overseas. And I thought this was a great opportunity to take lessons learned from what Russia did and also from the government response as Russia was interfering. And so I thought that in light of the delay that occurred as Russia was interfering last time and when Congress was notified, we should make sure that if any country is interfering in our elections that Congress is notified immediately. Every Republican voted against that. It's disheartening, Anderson, because I think that is one of the best ways we can strengthen our shield to show Russia that we're on to them and we're going to do better next time.
COOPER: Congressman Swalwell, appreciate you being with us, thanks.
SWALWELL: My pleasure.
COOPER: I want to bring in the panel, Jen Psaki, Jason Miller, Van Jones, Scott Jennings, Matt Lewis, and Jeffrey Toobin, our chief legal analyst.
Jeffrey, let me just start off with you. Just in terms of exerting pressure on a family member like this, it's playing hard ball but it's a pretty -- is it a common tactic?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it is -- it is a common tactic. It often arises in the context of spouses. You often have tax investigations where a husband and wife, for example, both signed a tax return. Both are liable for criminal violations if the tax return is intentionally false. It often works out that the husband who was often the lead financial member of the family takes a plea or cooperates in some way to avoid having a -- his wife prosecuted as well. Here you have a father and son. It is well within a prosecutor's discretion to say to a father, to Michael Flynn Sr., look, we will not prosecute your son if you cooperate, take a plea or whatever. So, you know, it's definitely hard ball, but it's done with some regularity. But the point we need to make here, of course, is that we have not established that either Flynn has committed any crime. So maybe nobody will be cooperating or pleading guilty to anything.
COOPER: Yes. Jason, how do you see this? Would it surprise you at all that Flynn and his son would be under the microscope here?
JASON MILLER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I really feel for General Flynn this evening especially seeing this report. He's somebody who served the country honorably for 33 years. And he's probably really kicking himself. He brought his son into what essentially was their family business and now clearly their activities have caught the attention of federal investigators and the allegations being put forward are pretty serious. So this looks like a pretty tough road in front of them.
But I think the biggest news here there is for all these developments, there are still nothing that says the campaign colluded with Russians. There is nothing today that says there is anything that goes to President Trump. And so what we've seen over these past couple of weeks is that Paul Manafort and Rick Gates have their set of problems. General Flynn and potentially other folks connected with his firm might have their issues. But none of this has anything to do with the campaign or the president himself.
COOPER: Jen, is that true?
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first, I think, what's interesting, another aspect that's interesting about this news today is that it's another indication that Mueller's focused on the financial ties, which is important because that tells you something about motivation. And a lot of people who are defending Trump and his team are saying, this is just incompetence, people just didn't know who they should or shouldn't meet with. But if we know about the financial ties and why people were meeting and what they were getting out of it, it might tell us more.
I would also say that Mueller has been very -- or his team has been clear this is the beginning. This could be a very lengthy process. So they haven't made a conclusion. They haven't done a final report. But we did learn two weeks ago that the Trump team did meet with Russians and did show an openness to sharing information about Hillary Clinton. So that may not be a conclusion on collusion, but it certainly is an indication of an openness to it.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, I think Flynn is different than Page and Papadopoulos. I mean, Page and Papadopoulos here are like the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of this whole thing. Flynn is actually important. He finished the campaign. He took a job in the White House. And so it hits closer to home than these two jokers.
I mean, look, I've got four boys at home. I would wrestle six bears wearing a bacon flavored on tarred (ph) if you told me he was going to somehow advantage them. I can't even begin to imagine the emotion you would feel if a federal special counsel says I'm going to throw your boy in the federal pen if you don't cooperate with this investigation.
[21:10:05] So I agree. I feel for these folks for getting themselves into this, but Jason made a good point. Right now none of these issues that they're looking at as far as we know are actually connected to Trump. So if you're in the White House, that's what you're rook looking for here, does this ever actually get to a campaign issue or not? We probably have a long way to go. But tonight, we don't know that. And I think what Jeffrey said is true --
COOPER: Van, I mean, there is a lot we do not know. We do not know what the process of General Flynn being fired actually was after the White House was notified because several weeks went by and only until "The Washington Post" was going with a story, I think, that he actually was fired. We don't know what internal e-mail communications was about -- between the president and others. And -- I mean, there is a lot we don't know. Which doesn't mean everybody is exonerated but we just don't know.
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: What we do know is that the dominos are falling. That's what we know. And the one thing I think is still the most damning piece of evidence against Donald Trump is what Donald Trump has not said. He has never said one bad thing about Vladimir Putin, ever. This guy talks bad about everybody but Ivanka and Vladimir. I don't know what the connection there is, but if you -- if you think that it's just a coincidence that he has never said one bad thing about the Russian dictator with all of this other stuff, I think you've got to keep watching this movie.
Beyond that, I think a couple of things. Politically, this is starting to add to the disease (ph) and the lack of comfort that I think you saw yesterday with the election. A lot of people who should have come out and voted yesterday who were Republicans (INAUDIBLE) didn't come out. People saying his tone, the controversies, these things are starting to have a political impact on him and a legal impact could be coming.
MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I keep hearing Trump defenders say, and I've said it, too, because it's true that, well, we don't have any proof that there was -- that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to meddle in the election. To which I would say Whitewater, you know, started about a land deal in Arkansas and ends up -- Bill Clinton ends up being impeached. It doesn't matter that the original, you know, story, didn't pan out. What matters is that you had an investigator who started looking into things, and let's be honest, when we have a campaign chairman whose house and storage facility is raided. We have a national security adviser who was on the entire campaign who is being -- a lot of pressure being exerted on him. As a father I completely understand that, maybe the worst way that you could squeeze this guy. I don't think it matter necessarily where this thing winds up.
COOPER: We're going to continue the conversation after a quick break. We'll also take up last night's big election night and the president's effect on it, if there was one. What success for Democrats says about the country's top Republican?
And later, Ronan Farrow, and the latest, a stunning turn into Harvey Weinstein scandal. His reporting on just -- how far Weinstein may have gone to silence and gain information about his accusers.
[21:16:42] COOPER: One guilty plea, two indictments so far in the Russia investigation. The question is, is the president's fired national security adviser concerned that his son will be next? You heard Jim Sciutto lay it out at the top of the hour. Multiple sources telling us that Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is worried about Michael G. Flynn's legal fate. Story not -- it opens a window of a -- only a crack into Robert Mueller investigation, it could also kick off a whole new round of headlines about the investigation and how close it may or may not get to the president. Back now with the panel.
Jeff Toobin, as you look at the pace of the Mueller investigation, to those who say that it's nearing the end, you say what?
TOOBIN: I say that's very unlikely. First of all, just as a factual matter, the Manafort trial is not even scheduled until next May and those dates tend to move back, not forward. The number of witnesses, you know, we don't know how many have testified before the Grand jury, but, you know, I think the fact that we were all so much taken by surprise by the Papadopoulos guilty plea suggests that, you know, as the rule goes, those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know about the course of the Mueller investigation. And since we already have a date certain well into next year for a trial, I think we are at the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
COOPER: Jeff, how likely would it be that the special counsel may want to try to flip Mueller? I mean -- want to flip Flynn?
TOOBIN: I think it's a certainty that he will want to interview him. You know, I -- you know, we talk about flipping as if, you know, we know exactly what someone will say. He is certainly someone who is very much at the center of the campaign, very much at the center of relations between the Trump campaign and Russia, which is after all the center of Mueller's investigation. He certainly is going to want to talk to him. He is not going to give him immunity just because he wants to talk to him. Presumably he will need a guilty plea to take -- before he gives him immunity. That undoubtedly is part of any negotiations that are going on. Flynn may well say I'm not talking to you. I didn't do anything wrong. If you want to charge me, charge me, but I am not cooperating.
COOPER: Scott, you worked in a White House that -- where investigation is going on. Can you just speak to the impact it has on the workings of a White House.
JENNINGS: Yes, it's a grind. I mean, the staff that works there -- look, Flynn worked in the White House. So he may have interacted with the staffs that are still there. They're probably getting interviewed. It doesn't mean they did anything wrong, but it does mean they had to hire a lawyer. And because they work in the White House they can't take pro bono legal help. So the bills are stacking up. These jobs are already stressful enough. And when you tack on the anxiety of this kind of an investigation, it hurts.
And the other thing that people forget is you might go in for an interview and then you wait. It could be weeks, it could be months. And every day you wake up waiting for the next shoe to drop. Is my name going to be in the press? Is my name going to appear in some document? Again, not that I did anything wrong, but just the concept that I might be connected to it does put anxiety on someone's mind. So it is a stressful moment for people, even if they're just witnesses in the investigation.
LEWIS: And, remember, Mike Flynn, not that few months ago, his attorney sent a letter saying that --
[21:20:04] COOPER: He has a story to tell.
LEWIS: He has a story to tell. And, you know, we've stressed tonight I think very appropriately so that Mike Flynn isn't guilty of anything yet, but as Jim Sciutto said, there is the Turkey lobbying, which he did not report until later, retroactively. There is the allegation that he wanted to physically remove Gulen, this Turkish cleric from the country which (INAUDIBLE).
We know he was fired from the White House because he was discussing apparently Russian sanctions, which would be a violation of the Logan Act, which is never prosecuted, but still. And then there is that speech in Russia. So talk about flipping this guy, squeezing Flynn, I mean -- and his son was his chief of staff and top aide. So he was with him in a lot of these occasions. I mean, he seems very vulnerable to me.
COOPER: So just on the campaign, though, how -- I mean, Flynn traveled with candidate Trump. They were very close on the campaign, weren't they?
MILLER: From the convention on he traveled quite a bit with the president. But I think one of the things with this is there isn't a big bombshell or some new piece of news that's coming out today. I don't think this is something that will continue popping up in the press every single day. But even the fact that today on the one-year anniversary of President Trump winning, the fact that we're talking about this Russia cloud, that this is continuing for year that we're not talking about a 4.1 percent unemployment rate or record high stock market. And this starts to get in the way of pushing the agenda forward and getting things done.
And I think what's going to be the challenge for this White House is stay focused on what the president said that he was going to go and do and not get distracted by this. So you take today being a perfect example of something that doesn't affect the White House. These are General Flynn problems that he has to deal with. They have to still stay focused on what they're doing.
COOPER: It's going to be such a hard thing. I mean, Scott, you would know that. I mean, people talk about it in the Clinton administration, they all do that. But I mean that -- I can't imagine working under that.
JENNINGS: Yet, not only is it a hard thing under these circumstances with the investigation, they have larger political circumstances they're dealing with, too. You know, they've got a Congress they're wrestling with every day. They've got an American people who are increasingly confident in the economy but decreasingly confident in the White House, which is unheard of. So they're trying to get their arms around more problems than just the investigation.
COOPER: We need to get a quick break. And when we comeback the president may have been overseas, but his presence was felt yesterday in the polls. We'll talk about how big a factor he might have been next in the Democrats election night victories last night with Republican Congressman Scott Taylor, next.
[21:25:53] COOPER: Democrats won big in statewide elections last night, capturing the governor's office in New Jersey and Virginia, plus picking up local seat across the country. Now a Virginia GOP congressman is saying it was at least in part a referendum on the Trump presidency.
New CNN polling shows growing disenchantment with the president, 64 percent of American said their confidence in President Trump since he took office has decreased. Plus, only 48 percent of American say that President Trump is doing good job keeping his campaign promises down from 48 percent back in April, and 68 percent of Americans do not trust most of what they hear from the White House according to this poll. Here's my conversation with Republican Congressman Scott Taylor from earlier today.
COOPER: Congressman, how much do you believe that last night's results in Virginia were a referendum on the Trump presidency?
REP. SCOTT TAYLOR (R), APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, I think that, you know, certainly there are other factors involved. Of course you could argue, you know, with the Gillespie campaign that they fell short in some areas and stuff like that, but I certainly think the overwhelming thing that was going on was the energy on the Democrat side and that's definitely a referendum on the president. I mean, we said the same thing when Governor Bob McDonnell won in 2009. It was a referendum on President Obama. So, if we want to be intellectually consistent, then this was as well.
COOPER: What the president has said is that though Gillespie worked hard that he didn't embrace the president. He didn't embrace the president's ideas and what the president stands for. You just don't buy that?
TAYLOR: With all due respect to the president, who I support, but -- I agree with him I say if, if I don't agree with him, I don't. And I say it, and I don't agree with him at all, with that. I think when you -- look, I'm from Virginia. I know the precincts. I know the candidates that were there. And when you look at the exit polls, when you look at how some of the turnout was in different areas, there is no question about it that the overwhelming theme there was a referendum on the administration and probably more importantly a lot of the divisive rhetoric that really stoked energy and emotion in the Democrat side and, you know, hats off to them, they showed up last night.
COOPER: It obviously depends on, you know, what state or commonwealth or district people are running in, but how closely would you advise Republican candidates to align themselves with the president going forward? I mean, you know, there is this now kind of common refrain or question does Trumpism without Trump work?
TAYLOR: Well, I think it's -- I think more importantly for candidates, and this is whomever Republican, Democrat, whatever, is to be authentic. And, you know, to speak about what you believe in. And the folks that believe what you believe, you know, will follow you or they'll support you.
So it's not necessarily about aligning or not aligning with the president. Like I said earlier, if I agree with him, I'll say it, I'll defend him. If I disagree with him, I'll also say that. And I think that is more important for Republicans and whomever in their district when they're communicating with their people.
COOPER: Do you think it came off as false that toward the end of Gillespie's campaign he seemed to kind of go after -- embrace some of the cultural issues that he perhaps had not really embraced earlier on. Did that come off as inauthentic?
TAYLOR: Well, possibly. You know, look, I don't think that those cultural issues that specifically, you know, the racism ones and some of the things that were happening in Virginia that I was seeing, quite frankly, on both sides. I think that's bad for the people of Virginia. I think it bad for the country. I think that leaders should unite people around a purpose and move forward. You know, I'm certainly someone who believes in addition in politics and not subtraction. So I was very unhappy with the tone and the rhetoric, quite frankly, that I believe is bad for the future of this state, this commonwealth of Virginia and also the country.
COOPER: Had -- I mean I guess the reverse is the question, had Gillespie, you know, embraced the president more directly, had the president campaigned with him, had he gone golfing with the president or whatever it may be, would that have made a difference? TAYLOR: I don't believe so.
COOPER: The political geography obviously in both New Jersey and Virginia, I mean, it wasn't tilted in Republicans' favor last night. Is there a risk in reading too much into these results, the possibility that the Republican Party could overcorrect somehow?
[21:29:52] TAYLOR: I believe that the Republican Carty could overcorrect based on the results last night. I believe that the Democratic Party could overcorrect based on the results last night. I think that, you know, politics is local. It is important. There are times where things are out of your control, like these waves, if you will, but it's important to not read too much into it. 2018 is being talked about a lot. Obviously that's a long ways away in politics as you very well know. But, you know, I believe that there are certainly were lessons learned, there are certainly some reflection that should go on within my own party and even within myself, right, and certainly within the president. And -- but -- I think it's important for Republicans to see the lessons learned in last night's election and move forward.
COOPER: Congressman Taylor, appreciate your time, thank you.
TAYLOR: Thank you.
COOPER: Well, up next, Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner weighs in on last night's big winners and losers. Plus, we'll get our panels take.
COOPER: Today marks the anniversary of the 2016 presidential election. The excitement after President Trump's victory 12 months ago did not help the Republican Party last night. Democrats sweep governor's races in Virginia as well as New Jersey. Pick up other seats across the country. I asked Virginia Senator Mark Warner for his take. Here is part of that conversation.
COOPER: I'm wondering what your filings are after the results in Virginia last night.
SEN. MARK WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Listen, Virginia was a great victory. Not only did we win the governor's race, a clean sweep of all of our statewide elected officials, but we also picked up 16 seats in our 100-member House of Delegates. And I think two reasons, one, you know, Virginia Democrats don't spend all of their time feuding the way sometimes some of the national Democrats have. We talk about jobs and health care and education.
[21:35:20] And also I think there was a real pushback against the kind of policies that were -- have been advocated, the divisive policies advocated by the president that the Republican candidates embraced in whole. I hope it will be in effect a warning shot across the bow amongst a number of Republicans. Because I think our country is better if we've got two strong centrist parties to kind of move away from some of these very divisive rhetoric and tactics of Mr. Trump.
COOPER: You have no doubt that last night was repudiation of the president's policies?
WARNER: Listen, I saw crowds not just in the suburban area, but in rural Virginia turn out in the days before the election that I haven't seen literally since my first race back in 2001. I saw a part (INAUDIBLE) valley, very heavily Republican area where Democratic candidates did better than they've done in decades.
And what I heard constantly was, one, they wanted me to finish my job in terms of this investigation and get the truth out about Russia, but, two, they were very concerned about the kind of divisiveness that the president seems to tweet out on a regular basis.
COOPER: -- back in the panel. You know, Jason, some of the president's supporters said the problem was Ed Gillespie did not embrace the president enough. Do you ascribe to that?
MILLER: Well, I think Ed Gillespie forgot to set his line up yesterday. That was quite a big shellacking. I don't think it was so much a failure to embrace the president, think it was a failure to embrace these economic populist ideals that the president ran on and then won this past year. So when you look at the Trump voter, there isn't a perfect overlap with the typical Republican primary voter. There are millions of Democrats and Independents and different people that -- non-traditional voters that the president brought to the table and got on board. They weren't enthusiastic about Ed Gillespie.
And so, yes, Ed Gillespie got a lot of Republican votes, but he failed to excite and motivate these voters to come out and do it. I think this is a bit of a wake-up call for the Republicans, (INAUDIBLE) look ahead to next year. The Republicans on Capitol Hill, they need to make sure that they're fighting for this economic populist agenda.
I'd say to Van and Jen before they get a little too cocky off last night, the fact that Democrats won some blue state elections, is I think you're going to start hearing a lot more about the threat of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and there is nothing that will go and turn out Republicans and Trump voters like the possibility of that happening.
JONES: You talk about excitement. And what I think you're going to see is even more exciting is just Donald Trump's consistently picking on people, retriggering, re-traumatizing people. I've never seen this much upset among liberals and progressives. You have liberals and progressives who just wake up every day upset. And they are just looking at the calendar waiting for an opportunity to come flooding down to vote to send a message to Donald Trump. You are correct, there is a economic message that Donald Trump has, it's a very good message if you're concerned about working folks, but it is marveled in with all this toxic racially, inflammatory divisive stuff and a lot of personal insult inductive (ph) which is -- that every tweet now I think is just stacking up energy that is going to come pouring out with midterm elections.
MILLER: So let me ask you, so these liberal voters, did they not have the same fervor to turn out and vote for Hillary Clinton last year?
JONES: You know what's very interesting, and this is something that I think you guys maybe not understand. There were people who were really progressives, Independents, Democrats, really kind of lukewarm on Hillary Clinton. But they weren't sure about Donald Trump. They said, yes, Donald Trump says terrible stuff, maybe he's joking. Maybe he's a joke candidate. Maybe he can't win. Maybe when gets there he's going to get better. Now we know what we're dealing with. And you can pick this product or not. And you're going to have people who maybe all they did was vote but didn't register. They are going to come out in large numbers.
COOPER: But Jen, isn't it a mistake for Democrats to basically be the party against Donald Trump? I mean, what are they for?
PSAKI: Yes, absolutely. Look, I think we can celebrate and we can have a moment which we haven't had in quite some time to feel like the party came together, progressives and centrists came together.
COOPER: Is that what you were doing today?
JONES: Yes. Yes.
PSAKI: We were partying.
JONES: All day. Every day.
PSAKI: However, I think the lesson we should not learn is that we can just run against Trump and that we can just be anti-Trump and that's going to win us back the House and win us the presidency. One of the biggest issue last night was health care for voters. And Northam won those voters by an overwhelming majority because they support health care and they want to have access to health care. That is a lesson for Democrats. That's not an issue we need to run away from. We haven't been for awhile. But he was also a candidate who very much fit the district. He did not meet all of the litmus tests that progressives hat had. He fit the state, I should say, not the district.
[21:40:14] LEWIS: Well, Democrats learned that lesson. That's actually very good point, right? So here you a guy who voted for George Bush once or twice, temperamentally stylistically comes across as moderate, wins this big race in Virginia. Will Black Lives Matter let other candidates like that -- will the Bernie Sanders -- the Berniecrats or whatever, will they allow other Northams to win nominations?
PSAKI: I think the key is that we can. There are so many people running across the country as Democrats. We don't know who is going to come out of those races, but they need to come together at the end of the day. And it feels really good to win. And I think that's what people felt last night.
COOPER: Scott, how do you feel?
JENNINGS: I think Van made a great point about Democrats galvanizing in opposition to something and it reminds me of the feelings that Republicans had in 2010 after Barack Obama got elected president. Now there were a lot of different viewpoints in the Republican Party but everybody agreed on one thing, we've got to go out and win these elections as a repudiation of the Obama winning in 2008. So sometimes having something to organize around, I don't like this person, can bring an entire party together, even if there are a lot of wings --
PSAKI: But health care was also a huge factor in 2012, too.
JONES: Wait a second. Especially though when you have someone like Tom Perriello, who was a progressive, who lost in that primary and then came out and worked just as hard to elect his rival, what you're going to see is Democrats are going to fight if the primary and come together in the general that (INAUDIBLE) last night.
COOPER: Thanks everybody. Coming up, new allegations as Harvey Weinstein hired former Israeli intelligence officers and others to investigate and try to silence his accusers and journalist who tried to report. It's extraordinary reporting from Ronan Farrow. Ronan joins --
[21:45:28] COOPER: Sexual assault and harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein keep piling up and now we're getting an extraordinary look at the lengths he went to, to keep them from getting out. In an article, "The New Yorker" Ronan Farrow reports that Weinstein hired detectives and former Israeli intelligence officers to track not only the women who were accusing him but also the journalist who were trying to report it. According to Farrow's reporting, these investigators assumed fake identities in some cases to get close to accusers and journalists and made secret recordings and report it back. They also put together psychological profiles on dozens of people trying to dig up dirt on them. And according to Farrow's reporting, Weinstein monitored all of this personally. Ronan Farrow joins me.
Incredible job reporting on this, can you just explain some of the lengths that Harvey Weinstein would go to, to monitor people who were potentially going to make accusations against him and to essentially silence them.
RONAN FARROW, THE NEW YORKER: I mean that's really the headline here, right? He went so far. But I also think this opens a window into how far a lot of powerful people can go if they are this bent on stopping allegations against them. In Weinstein's case starting in last fall as Rose McGowan tweeted heavily implying that he had raped her. Her words used in those tweets, as a number of women started to talk to me and other reporters, he hired a whole array of private security firms. And these aren't, you know, a gum shoe in a rundown apartment. These are elite international organizations that specialize in creating front companies, creating false identities and those companies went to work using those kinds of false identities to insinuate themselves into the lives of people he was targeting.
COOPER: One of the companies that you write about is called Black Cube which is apparently Former Mossad agents from Israel and others. The level of detail of, I mean, how far they would go, you know, setting up front companies, posing as women's rights advocates in order to meet with Rose McGowan, I mean, they were launching intelligence operations.
FARROW: Yes, I mean, these was aggressive human intelligence gathering. In the case of Rose McGowan, two separate agents met with her. One of them met with her a whole series of times, so for a multiple months --
COOPER: Befriended her really.
FARROW: Really became a friend. I mean, Rose McGowan was shocked to find out that this woman Diana Philip of Reuben capital partners was a fictional identity lying to her all of that time and surreptitiously recording audio of all of their conversations and sending it to back to her alleged attacker.
COOPER: And they were also reaching out to journalists.
FARROW: That's another dimension of this that I think is important for people to understand, anyone reporting on this issue against someone of that stature and power faces this kind of retaliation and interference. There's a reporter Ben Wallace at "New York" magazine who actually was targeted in a similar human intelligence capacity by this woman using a completely different identity meeting with him with an emotional story suggesting that she had an allegation against Harvey Weinstein.
COOPER: So she was actually posing possibly as a victim of Harvey Weinstein?
FARROW: Exactly right. And at the same time Harvey Weinstein was aggressively going after that journalist's editor, Adam Moss of "New York" magazine and repeating to Moss very specific details of the kinds of questions their publication was, you know, secretly they thought asking to sources.
COOPER: The other thing as -- what's interesting about this is the involvement of David Boies, who is probably, you know, best know as arguing the merit of the pro or equality of marriage gays.
FARROW: Liberal, hero, lawyer.
COOPER: Right. But he was working for Harvey Weinstein and hired this firm. Many people will hire an intelligence firm through an attorney because I guess supposedly that has attorney/client privilege automatically.
FARROW: The theory is if the investigative material is submitted through an attorney as a pass through, it can't be submitted in court because of privilege issues. Whether that would actually hold up, I don't know. I'll leave that to others to speculate. Certainly I hope after this people take a hard look as to whether these kinds of activities should be able to be secret in this way.
COOPER: So on the one hand, his firm is representing "The New York Times", the other hand, he is the one organizing or at least fronting this effort with this intelligence firm against "The New York Times".
FARROW: His signature is on the contracts. The money went through Boies Schiller, his firm. And, look, he told us this was a mistake but he also defended the decision. He said it was not a conflict of interest. That it wouldn't have been averse to "The Times"' interests if they submitted information to them that ended the reporting on this. That disproves some of these allegations. Obviously "The New York Times" has strenuously disagreed with this and in fact fired David Boies' firm in the last 24 hours.
COOPER: You know, I've talked to a number of people who work in Hollywood who have a long history in Hollywood and they have all talked about your reporting and said that they believe it cannot go back to the way it was, that this has made -- that something fundamental has changed, that it can never return to the way it was. Do you think that's true?
[21:50:13] FARROW: I'd like to believe that. That will depend on the changes we make to our society and to the restrictions on these kinds of activities. All over the country there are states looking at whether you should be allowed to use none disclosure agreements to buy silence around sexual assault. It will be interesting to see whether that actually comes to pass in turns into real change. Similarly, this aggressive use of human intelligence tactics through law firms, that's something that I hope the legal profession take a serious second look at.
COOPER: The willingness of people to come forward, women, men, in case of Bill Cosby (ph) and others. That seems to have changed. I mean, there does seem to be this ground swell of people coming forward.
FARROW: Vastly. I mean, look, I began to talk to women about coming forward with the most difficult story of their life in many cases at a time when already women had come forward against Bill Cosby, women had come forward against Roger Ailes. There had been by then a body of reporting that at least showed to these women as scared as they were and justifiably so that this could be done. And that has changed everything and I think continues to change thing.
COOPER: Well, again, incredible reporting and great "The New Yorker" went forward with this. And I urge everyone to read the articles.
FARROW: Thank you so much, Anderson.
COOPER: As we mentioned, more and more reports of sexual harassment and assault by powerful men have finally come to light in past year. Tune in tomorrow night at 9:00 when Alisyn Camerota host a live CNN Town Hall, "Tipping Point: Sexual Harassment In America."
Up next, a Texas town devastated, eight members of one family were among those killed in the worst church shooting in American history. The pastor who broke the tragic news to the surviving family member tells his story when we continue.
[21:55:38] COOPER: Vice President Mike Pence today met with victim family members and survivors of the mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Spring, Texas. He also attended a prayer service tonight. Here re some of what he say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know the cherished names of the fallen will live on forever in the hearts of all who knew them. But let me assure you. Their names will also be enshrined in the hearts of every American forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: The shooter killed 25 people devastating the small town of Sutherland Springs. Eight members of one family were killed. The impossible task of informing surviving family members fell to the pastor of a nearby church. Alexander Marquardt reports.
ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In family photos the Holcombe's look as close-knit as a family gets, dressing up as pirates during Thanksgiving holidays. Grandkids climbing up and sliding down the water slide their grandfather Bryan got for them at Easter.
Pastor Mike Clements knew the family well. Over the years a number of Holcombe have attended his Baptist Church in nearby Floresville.
PASTOR MIKE CLEMENTS, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, FLORESVILLE, TX: We'd just crack up, tell stories, tell jokes, have fun. Kid around, push on each other. Just have fun. Just enjoy life. God meant for our lives to be enjoyed and to be a joy. And they were that way.
MARQUARDT: But in an instant their lives changed forever. Eight members of the Holcombe family spanning three generations gunned down in church as Bryan, the grandfather, was preaching. It was Pastor Clements who broke the news to Bryan's parents.
CLEMENTS: Here we have eight people in a family that left us in one day. There is no script for that. MARQUARDT: There's also no script for how loved ones react to this kind of news. Clement says at first the parents grind and were excited. Their deep Christian faith assuring them that their family is now in heaven.
CLEMENTS: It didn't mean that they didn't hurt and have tremendous pain and loss in their life. But their faith in God is so strong they know what their family is experiencing right now with the Lord. And they're excited for them, even though they're sad for themselves because they won't get to see their loved ones.
MARQUARDT: Among the dead were four children. The youngest 17-month- old Noah celebrating her first birthday here with her father Danny, also killed. There was 13-year-old Greg, receiving a new karate belt. His 11-year-old sister Emily, flashing a peace sign at the camera. Their sister Megan, just nine, leaning on their mother Crystal, who was two months pregnant, shot and killed as well. And then Bryan and Karla, married for 40 years, who during the summers ran a church camp for kids.
CLEMENTS: Bryan and Karla never went on vacation. They spent their time on vacation at camp. They provided this opportunity at the Alto Frio Baptist encampment for my kids and thousands of other little boys and girls so that they could go to a place and jump in the river and learn how to use a bow and arrow.
MARQUARDT: And it's the Holcombe's faith, Clement says, that led them to already forgive the killer who took so many lives in this community and in their family.
CLEMENTS: I can tell you, they've forgiven this man for what he's done, and they would say to him that God loves him in spite of this tremendous tragedy. That's the kind of people they are. The devil was using that man. It was so wrong, so evil, it was so anti-God. God did not want this to happen at all, but we forgive him.
MARQUARDT: Anderson, earlier today the vice president met with some of the wounded who are still in the hospital and then he got a briefing from law enforcement after which he said it was bureaucratic failures that are partly to blame for the gunman being to able to get the with weapons that he did. He also said they would get to the bottom of why the conviction that the gunman received while he was in the military was not properly reported. Anderson.
COOPER: Alex Marquardt thanks very much. And that's it for us. Thanks for watching "360". Time to hand things over to Don Lemon. "CNN Tonight" starts right now.
DON LEMON, "CNN TONIGHT" HOST: This is "CNN Tonight". I'm Don Lemon.