Major TV Networks Stand with CNN, Decline to Replace WH Pool Crew

0:00Saturday, September 26, two of combat sports most dangerous strikers collide. Bear Knuckle. Liverpool's own down in the Gorilla tail goes to war with Cuban Powerhouse, Yoel Soldier of God Romero. Plus the Bear Knuckle Midow Head Championship of the world is on the line when the rating champ Dave Verredneck Mundell defends against undefeated British challenger Jack Demeek Cleaver-Colin, BKFC 94, Till versus Romero. Watch it live only on the zone. Sign up now at Dishonet.com. Good evening from the newsroom. Tonight, a president who once shoved a fellow world leader aside to get out front at a photo opportunity, discover what it's like to have one less camera to get out in front of. That is Montenegro's prime minister. He's manhandling the 2017 NATO Summit. Just looking back today, though, for the first time in modern memory, the one camera that's in the White House or that travels with a president almost always, including back then was not there. It's called the pool camera gives pool coverage. It's a responsibility dating back to the 1950s. And CNN and other major networks for decades have shared

1:02so that when a president makes news or makes history or something terrible happens to the president, there's always at least one camera to capture the moment. The networks take turns doing pool coverage and it shares sharing the video, even though we might compete on just everything else. Well, today CNN was scheduled to be the pool crew. But the White House said no, three days after banning CNN, MSNOW, and Politico from the premises. The three news outlets today file the federal lawsuit seeking to restore access. The other major networks stood in solidarity declining to replace CNN in the pool. A number of print and wire outlets added their support, meaning there was no pool coverage. And a White House ribbon cutting for his new helipad today looked and sounded like this on Newsmax. Okay, so there is no microphone because there's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there. So maybe Tim, this is one example of it backfiring just a little bit.

2:03That was the Newsmax anchor. There was no pool coverage of that. There was no pool coverage of his arrival today in New York, the UN General Assembly. The pool members putting out a joint statement today, which reads in part, the public has a vital interest in receiving accurate independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting. That notion is that the heart of the lawsuit, which says the president's action quote, could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles. Hearing is set for Wednesday. The administration has until tomorrow to file a response. The president has already weighed in on social media, quoting from his post, which ran to more than 300 words. Virtually every story about me or anything having to do with me is negative wrong. And in many cases dangerous for our country, no matter how great my achievements, they trivialize and demean. He concludes in all caps with fake news is a threat to democracy. Now keep it in mind, as though for someone who has such little regard for the people covering him, he certainly

3:03takes every opportunity he can to spend time with them. These videos are from just the last two weeks. He goes out of his way to turn photo ops into press conferences and signing ceremonies into long solo inquiries. He engages with reporters whether he likes them or not. Are you trying to intimidate the president from doing that? No, no, no. I dislike dishonest press, like you. I think you're terrible. But I dislike dishonest, I like to see honest press. President Trump is saying he likes dislikes dishonesty. That's Catherine Lucy, by the way, a Bloomberg. You may remember him once telling her after a question about Jeffrey Epstein. And these are his words, quiet piggy. Despite that, he is still talking to her. So why the ban on CNN, MSN, and Politico? On Friday, the president said there was no reason. A very simple ban. I don't want him in my office. I don't want him here. Today, though, he suggested there were many reasons. He said in negative coverage, accused news outlets

4:04of violating US national security, suggesting they don't treat the White House and his words with decorum. And people familiar with Matturthel CNN that his decision came after his close aid, Natalie Harp, showed him clips of media coverage last week. One source said that an item from Politico was among the material that is believed to have infuriated the president helped inform his decision. Meantime, Vice President Van said today that what the president did, which you just heard him call quote, simple, very simple ban. The Vice President says it's not a ban at all. He's not banning media outlets. What he's doing is saying, we're not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda. He's banning media outlets. The White House also weighed in saying, quote, access changes are nothing new. And saying past democratic administrations have, quote, restricted, punished, and locked out the press. We begin tonight. CNN's Chief White House correspondent, Anchor of the Source, Caitlin Collins, joins us who is going to be part of the poll today. So is the White House even accurate to have past administrations instituted to bans like this in modern history?

5:06No. I mean, certainly there have been administrations, Anderson, that have tried to limit reporters access or get involved in certain ways. But often we've seen outcry as when President Obama was in office and they sought to, at one point, exclude Fox News from a series of interviews that a Treasury official was doing. The other outlets protested. And Obama White House ended up giving in there and letting Fox also have that interview. We've never seen something in modern history that we can point to or that past White House correspondent's Association presidents can point to where outright the White House has tried to ban outlets and reporters from accessing the White House grounds and going into the Oval Office and attending events with the president in the manner that the president is doing right now. And so pulling the entire outlet credentials for CNN, MSNOW, Politico, is the White House is now doing. And we're actually seeing in real time how that's affecting those outlets, whether it's access to the White House grounds as our reporters and colleagues were blocked from doing on Saturday morning or today

6:09when CNN was expected to serve as the TV pool with the president on his trip here to New York and then was removed from that assignment and will not be carrying out that assignment when the president is here at the United Nations. Tomorrow morning to meet with these world leaders. And so we're watching this moment as the White House is defending it and arguing that it is well within the president's right. Obviously that's something that's going to have to play out in court, Anderson. But I've been spending the last few days talking to a lot of White House officials about this. Many of them were caught off guard when the president came out and announced on Friday that he was banning these three outlets, including CNN on Friday. And we were told when we asked why now because the president has complained about negative coverage for decades. Way before he was president, why is he now taking this step to ban these outlets and they pointed to that graphic that Natalie Harp, his close aide who was traveling with him here in New York showed him about Politico's coverage. And Anderson, I think it's also to remember the bigger picture here, the time that the president is doing this. He did not take this action, though he has certainly

7:09talked about it within his first two years in office. He didn't go as far as to take this action, but it comes as he has been watching a lot of coverage he doesn't like. And that's not necessarily because of the coverage or the reporter or the outlet. It's the headline in and of itself, whether it's gas prices rising, the federal reserve raising interest rates, no end in sight to the Iran war. All of these things that are obviously challenges for the president certainly setbacks in some situations as with the Supreme Court ruling against him on mail-in voting that are all coming ahead of a pretty critical midterm election for this president, where he's also getting bad forecasting internally in terms of what his party's prospects are, come November. So I think it's important to keep all of that in mind in terms of how the president is viewing the coverage of him. Does the White House think they can win this in court? It depends on who you ask. The president himself on Friday didn't even seem confident that he would win this ultimately. Today, he was lamenting the fact that even though it is at a judge, that he appointed, a Trump appointed judge,

8:11that they will likely lose. He seemed to be suggesting, because he was saying that they would appeal whatever the decision is by this judge when this hearing happens on Wednesday. But I talked to some officials over the weekend who do not think that they have legal standing here, and they do not think that this will hold up in court. And we're still defending the president's decision, but don't actually think it will hold up. And so that's a whole entire question in terms of the legal standing. But Anderson, you know as well as I do, this is a president who prioritizes his coverage, but especially his TV coverage. He watches a lot of television. He watches what his allies are saying about him. He watches what Democrats are saying about him. And so the idea that he does not have blanket coverage or a TV camera traveling with him, which is the first time in modern history that I can think of where a president has traveled and not had one of the five major networks traveling with him to carry that is also really a notable moment in and of itself. And just to be clear, this isn't about CNN. This would be happening if it was Fox News, it was the pool and a Democratic president

9:12had pulled them from assignment. The person who is traveling with the president is the TV pool represents ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox. And so obviously in that situation, they're not just there on behalf of their outlet, they're on behalf of the entire TV networks that provide that and then distribute it to everyone else for coverage of what the president is doing. Yeah, Caitlin, appreciate it. Thanks, Caitlin. We'll see you at the top of the hour for the source. I'm on Caitlin's guest, will be the president, Trump's UN ambassador, Mike Waltz. Joining us now is CNN, sheep media analyst, Brian Steltzer. So Brian, what more can you tell us about how other media outlets are reacting to this? More information in here as you're coming to me, Anderson. You know, other media outlets are standing with CNN in a remarkable way. And almost saying that a ban of some is a ban of everyone. In the past few minutes, we've learned that MPR is not going to use audio of Trump events, White House events of the time being. And all of the still photographers who cover Trump on a daily basis are showing solidarity with the banned outlets as well. There have been conversations behind the scenes today. And basically, the photographers have taken photos

10:12like usual. They've turned in the photos to their photo desks. But those photo desks and outlets of the Washington Post and the New York Times are not publishing or distributing the photos at all until midnight tonight. So another way that Trump is losing airtime, losing his form of oxygen because of the ban he implemented. Now, the White House is touting its Trump TV channel on YouTube, seemingly acting like it's going to set up an actual state-run TV outfit. But independent newsrooms likely are not going to be using many or any of Trump's homemade videos. Again, in the past hour, PBS announced it's not going to publish any video or still images provided by the administration. Anderson, I've covered media a long time. I've not seen a show of solidarity across the White House press corps quite like the one I've been seeing today. Brighton, want to ask you about the other big media news today, involving CNN's parent company, the group of state attorneys general have settled their lawsuit attempting to block Paramount's acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery, essentially clearing the way for the merger to take place. What are you learning about the terms of the deal?

11:14That's right, and this deal will now take effect in the next seven to 10 days. I expect right around the end of the month or in the first couple days of October. We can put some of the settlement terms on screen. Many of them involve Hollywood because the focus of those day attorneys general was largely on the entertainment industry. Paramount now committing to releasing 30 films, reattro-creatorically per year, maintaining its release windows, keeping those studios in California open and not relocating production, and investing more money into domestic film production. There are also impacts on the news business. As Paramount is expected to merge in some way, CBS News with CNN this network, although it's unclear when that could start to happen. The state AG, some of them pushed for what's being called an editorial independence board, that will try to ensure protections for those newsrooms, both of them. That's important because there's been widespread concern about Paramount patriarch Larry Ellison and his close ties to President Trump, as well as his son David, the Paramount CEO, who tried to cozy up to the Trump White House in order to get mergers approved. Many merger opponents have said

12:15that that's stunk to high heaven, and they're concerned about CNN's independence going forward. This editorial board will be comprised of five journalists chosen by Paramount, who can set standards and can resolve disputes. None of us have any idea if that will be effective or not, but I know one thing, Anderson. I've been hearing from a lot of viewers who are concerned about the Paramount takeover, and I understand why. But one thing I've learned is that CNN just keeps going. No matter what, no matter who's in charge, no matter who owns the company, no matter where, it just keeps going. And ultimately, viewers and readers will be the judge of this next chapter of CNN. The same way viewers have been the judge, since it was founded, more than 45 years ago. Yeah, Brian Stalter, appreciate it. Thank you. I want to get perspective on all this from former Trump White House communication director, Anthony Scaramucci. It's also the author of a really interesting new book called All the Wrong Moves, How Three Catastrophic Decisions Lead to the Rise of Trump. I won't ask you about the book in a moment. Just, I mean, you were a communications director for a while. What do you make of this ban?

13:15It wasn't a while. It was almost the shortest program. But I was there when Sean Spicer was not calling on CNN. You may remember that there were several months where he wasn't calling on him. Also, the week prior to me getting there, he was shutting off the cameras in the press room. I don't know if you remember all that. So my first move when I did the one and only press conference that I had was the first people I called on with CNN. I called on Sarah. You probably wouldn't remember that. It's nine years ago, but I was trying to send a message to the press. And then I took Sarah Huckabee Sanders, with me to a breakfast the next day with the White House Correspondents Association president to see if we could sort of soften things up. But the president is the communications director, as you know. And it turns out he's now the press secretary because he hasn't replaced the press secretary. And he doesn't like the press when it's negative on him. He wants to be loved and he wants the attention to be positive. And that was a very impetuous move by him. If he had a general Kelly involved, or he had anybody,

14:16but there's a little long gone. Long gone. So no one backs, no one says, Mr. President, you're making a really bad mistake. They're going to cut your air supply. The media is going to be in consolidation and solidarity. And you're not going to get any of the attention that you need. Do you think you can do a more thin skinned? As whether it's age or just, you know, I think. I think he has been comfortably thin skinned like this for several decades. I just think he's got a lot of things that are not going well. And I actually think this was also a distraction shot. Sure. You've got Rokana and Massey. They've got the Epstein votes lined up so much so that they shut down the Congress. You're not winning the war in Iran. He says that we won at 50 times. We're not winning it. You've got an energy shock going on and interest rates going up in the United States. And Anderson, you know this. There's several hundred billion dollars of costs associated with the war. Energy shock, interest rates up, and the 40 billion that we spend on the ground. So he wants to distract from all of that

15:18and he doesn't want that cover. So tonight we're running coverage related to this. And it's a disgrace and it's historic. It's fascinating. It also keeps you away from everything else. It's fascinating. The Vice President out saying it's not a ban. He says it's a ban. The Vice President said it's not a war. The President says it is a war. I mean, they seem not to be communiquely. But look at the doodoo. Look at the doodoo, poor JD. Yeah. So I mean, he's got himself as flowing robes Jesus on the month before he's putting out the communion book where he's converting to Catholicism. So that's him. The book all the wrong moves. It's really fascinating. You're looking back at what created Donald Trump. Yeah, I think the president is a symptom of something that happened in the country that was basically misguided policy. And it's a, it's not a polemic on a partisan side, one way or the other. This is an observation of several presidents all well-intended, all trying to do the right thing, but getting unexpected outcomes of what they thought. We let China into the WTO think they were going to open their market.

16:19They didn't open their market. They also came in with emerging market status and they had certain benefits. We never checked them as they were growing. It ended up hurting us in a lot of different ways and they became an economic superpower. OK, to let them in, but we should have treated them differently as they were growing. You then pointed NAFTA. Yeah, NAFTA. NAFTA was another big problem for us because we were losing manufacturing as a result of the offshoring into Mexico and even parts of Canada. I understand the idea and I'm saying we should have levels of free trade, but I'm more in light hives, Robert Lighthives, or camp, that we need to have fair... How did that end up with Trump? How did that lead to Trump? So, so you weaken wages for those people. These are white working class families. The wages got weakened. You then went into these large wars that you prosecute for two decades. Rampage, deficit spending, creates inflation. That's what you're trying to... Right, but when you monetizing debt with inflation, remember, the truthflation.com, January of 2020 today, US dollars down 28%.

17:20If you don't own assets and you're in the working class, you're getting killed. And then the third one is we gave the money to the banks and the bailout, no middle or lower income relief. And so you take in the money away from people, you're devaluing their savings, and then you fed the fat cats. That combination created a lot of popular tanker. You saw it on the left with Bernie Sanders in 16, and you saw it on the right with then-candidate Trump. Yeah, it's a fascinating way to track it all through. I either, it's a quote from the book, which you talk about President Trump in it. You say his political instincts are dedicated to himself, not to any ideas about the country, aside from not wanting it to be taken advantage of, laughed at behind his back and treated as an embarrassment. It seems like those instincts... That has been the through line throughout. Got a chip? He's got a chip on his shoulder. And he said that chip on his shoulder. And that's what's happening there, laughing at us is a recurring theme. Because it's a projection, okay? When he says, low IQ, we probably had somebody as a kid telling me he had low IQ. When he says they're laughing at us,

18:21it's a projection of him. You know, this is an anger-based movement, and a lot of people that were angry that they'd been left out of the system, and I would attribute it to be unfairly left out of the system, attach themselves to his anger. You see, and that's why he still has a strident 33% support. Those people are like, hey, this system is not working for me, and President Trump wants to burn down the system. No problem. Break it up, burn it down. It's a really fascinating way to how far you go back and kind of see what kind of trails are. I'm trying to use my 38 years as an economist, and as a Wall Streeter, to follow the money through the politics. I also spent 30 years of my career as a presidential fund worker. I also like it that you point out, which a lot of people don't. What you got wrong in predicting what might happen back when you were straight in early on. I got it wrong. I was pro-letting China into the WTO. I also would have supported the war if I had a vote because it was in the aftermath of 9-11. That was an emotional decision that we didn't think properly about.

19:23All the wrong moves, the look. All the wrong moves. Let's start making some right moves, though. That's the problem, and that's the back part of the book, talking about the right moves ahead. Anthony, thank you. Thanks, Anderson. All the wrong moves, how three catastrophic decisions led to the rise of Trump. It's fascinating. We're going to come up next more on the news of the day with the court deadline than a hearing-fast approaching with a retired federal chief district judge who makes the lawsuit over the media ban and the administration's rebuttal so far. And then later the president's new plan to turn his giant arch into a drone port and a sniper's nest. We'll take a look at that and why he's saying that. We'll be right back. Get ready for election night. CNN is available to stream live now with an all-access subscription, plus get exclusive content and interactive Q&As with CNN's journalists. Subscribe now and get 25% off. Visit CNN.com slash all-access. Terms apply.

20:35The president's new plan is to make sure that the president and his new president are aware about a small group of reporters, including members of the press pool, who went with them. We're talking tonight about this president's decision to bar CNN, MSNOW, and political journalists from the White House, all three of which have now filed suit and federal court. Joining us is retired federal district court judge, a chief judge, Johnny Jones III. He's currently president of Dickinson College. Judge Jones, so what do you expect it to happen in this hearing set for Wednesday? Well, Anderson, good to be with you as always. I think what's going to happen quite clearly is that the judge is going to convene around 3.30. It looks like in the afternoon he's going to hear argument from the parties. What's at stake here are liberty interests that the media organizations have grounded in the first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press, and free speech. And you want you to establish, and it's pretty clear, that that is a matter of fact, that you have these liberty interests. You can't take them away without due process, meaning that you have to give the holders of the press

21:39passes an opportunity to challenge or respond. And he's going to ask that question, Judge Kelly, is, and there's no good answer, my view, that the government lawyers can provide in terms of the lack of due process. So at the end of the day, I think it's pretty clear that a temporary restraining order is going to be entered lifting the ban or bans in this case. I mean, in the 2018 case, the Trump administration backed off, the lawsuit never reached a full resolution on the merits. I'm wondering what do you think happens if the administration chooses to press this and the judges is forced to rule on the merits, and then where do they take it? Well, the next step after the TRO, if they want to press it, Anderson, is that TRO can only be in existence under the rules for a certain period of time. So he's going to set a date as he did in the accostum matter for a full hearing on the injunction, on the preliminary injunction. And as you aptly noted, the government folded its hand in that

22:40particular case. But if they want to, if the government decides they want to take it to the mat, they can go to the hearing. But they've got a difficult client because the president is his own worst enemy. So if you say that this is not viewpoint discrimination or some kind of restraint, you don't want your client to say that. Well, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's fake news. What's fake news? That's not a legally defensible position. Yeah, I mean, he's saying he doesn't like negative stories. If they choose to press this, if they choose to press this, how much farther can they take it? Well, once an injunction is entered, I would think that at some point they're going to try to get what's known as an interlocatory appeal, meaning they're going to, before the absolute conclusion of the case, they're going to try to take it up to the circuit court and see if

23:41they can get the injunction lifted. And then the circuit court has it and the circuit court will have to deal with it at some point. There are costs and fees involved in this too. I guess they don't care about that on the government side. I think it's a straight loser. This is not a hard call for a judge to make under any set of circumstances so they can take it as long and as far as they want to. But echoing your prior guess, maybe this is just performative. I just don't understand what possible theory would support what the president has done here. Yeah, Judge Jones, I appreciate your time. Thanks for having me on. Thank you. Turning out of the president's arch, which he now says will also be a quote, top grade military complex. He says it will quote, how's store and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones plus snipers on both the roof and plaza areas and

24:41additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage. In case you're wondering why he is settling now making this all about national security, consider his ballroom, which he is also selling as a bunker in drone port. Joining us now with more on this is former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. So does this make any sense to you? I mean, is the need for storage for sniper ammunition so great that this arch would be the reason for it or for drones? Interesting. Technically, none of this makes any sense. I was slightly worried. I'm wondering what it is like rush to the arch snipers, rush to the arch to get a high vantage point. I mean, no, I mean, think about this. The way that snipers are deployed in the United States, this isn't a law enforcement context. It's not like when we were in Afghanistan and snipers would be out there on patrol with platoons and things.

25:41You deploy snipers here to protect a person or a location and they have from a high vantage point they're able to see when a threat is approaching, much in the same way that the snipers ultimately protected the president Butler, Pennsylvania. So who are we protecting in the arch that we're protecting the traffic as it goes around the circle and over the bridge? It's just no common sense to that whatsoever. As far as storing large quantities of sniper weapons, I mean, you can probably get a thousand rounds of sniper ammunition in a shoe box. So, you know, you really don't have much of a need for a 250-foot cement structure to store all the, I don't know, hundreds of millions of rounds of sniper ammo, I'm not sure what you would do with that. How differential have the courts been in the past to the federal government to determine what is and isn't in the national security interest? And obviously, I mean, the courts seem to be impacted by the president saying

26:41about the ballroom that, you know, there's big national security implications and what's going to be underneath it. That seemed to have been an argument which worked in the courts, and I assume that's why he's now resorting to this odd argument. Yeah, no doubt. And he's clearly been listening to his lawyers, and that has been a time-tested approach in the federal courts. The federal courts are reluctant to challenge the judgment of the executive branch when it comes to determining what a threat to national security is or how that threat should be responded to. The courts are not a position to question the intelligence or, you know, the case that they take on those issues outside the context of the case that they're deciding. The problem here, though, and this is how it's a little bit different than the ballroom, the president, nor anyone on his behalf, has spoken about any sort of threat that we need this arch to counteract. He simply said he wants to put drones and snipers on it.

27:42And so there's not a lot of meat on the bone there in terms of why is this a necessary strategy to mitigate a threat. It was different slightly with the ballroom because there was already a bunker under the ballroom. So it's kind of like the argument had already been made decades ago in the aftermath of 9-11, and now they could come into court and say, well, it needed to be updated, it needs to be better protected, you know, those sorts of things. But again, I think it is a understandable legal strategy, but I think it's one that ultimately is not particularly persuasive. Well, also, I think if the arch were suddenly a national security installation full of ammunition, then it's a munitions depot that would need to be protected in a whole other level than it's already being considered. I mean, it's not just the art you would need, like, protection around the arched and restricted access even to that area in order to get even close, I would think, to the arch. But I guess we'll learn more if this ever does go to court. Yeah, and then, okay, thank you.

28:43Next, the president gets ready to host China's leader and what to make of the president's recent claim that just like China, quote, I think we're repressive also. Also, growing questions surrounding another ice involved shooting now that the victim is talking about what happened to him, some of which was caught on camera, including the bullet hole in his back. Whoa. Oh my god. Holy f***ing dude. Oh my god. The president poised to defend his decision to bar scene and into other news organizations from the White House and courted his worth remembering something that sets him apart from other presidents of both parties, namely the open admiration he has for world leaders who've done far worse when it comes to the free press. China is one of the most impressive countries for journalists in the world. What? It's similar to the same thing. I think we're repressive also.

29:43We get fake news. We don't repress, but they write fake news. When given a chance to simply say something like I did what I did, but we're not China, he chose instead to say, well, we kind of are he hosts Xi Jinping Thursday in Washington. Joining us now can get a Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. So, you heard the president being asked about China's repressive practices against journalists amid the White House on press ban. I'm wondering what kind of a message the president is sending to China in the world by conflating his flouting in the constitutional guarantees journalists have in the US with China. Yeah, I was not glad you're still covering it. I'm glad it's still news. I'm glad we don't accept this, but he's been doing this for two years straight. I mean, he has affection for dictators from Putin to Xi, to others. And that's because he wants to be a dictator. I mean, he's just really not hiding this any longer. He has disdain for elections that elect anybody other than his allies.

30:44He does not want a free press. He wants a press that he controls. He's willing to use the power of the White House to try to hunt down his political enemies, including the Justice Department. I mean, this is a president who is engaged in a full-scale assault on our democracy. And though the institutions of this country have largely failed us from the corporations, to the universities, to the big law firms, the people have not failed us. And they continue to turn out in huge numbers as they will this fall to say that, well, democracy's broken. It's not worth throwing out to create a permanent government enrichment scheme for the Trump family. So yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of affection showered on Xi during this summit. And it will just be another reminder to the American public that democracy, free speech, it's all on the ballot this November. I mean, the White House has shown no indication or in certainly no inclination on slowing anything to do with AI down. And the White House has come out very much against what Daria Amade has said last Saturday.

31:47Are you hoping anything comes or do you think anything may come out of Trump's conversations with Xi this week? Well, what has happened thus far in the US-China AI relationship is that Trump has been willing to sell more advanced AI technology to China, which is probably the easiest way to give China a head start on the AI economy. But broadly, no, Trump is in the pocket of the AI companies. He saw this public backlash against data centers. He had a chance to reverse or change his position. He did not. In part, because his entire empire is likely dependent in part on his relationship with these companies. So no, Trump is not going to seek any cooperation with China of any meaningful nature on AI. Trump is going to do whatever the AI companies tell them, help them build their data centers, allow Davidia and other chip makers to be able to sell their technology to China.

32:48Trump is not going to protect us from AI. There's going to be no diplomacy that will be helpful on China with AI. Ultimately, it'll have to be Democrats if we win this November that are going to have to have an agenda before Congress that slows down the destruction of jobs and our culture of this really increasingly dangerous technology. Do you think some sort of compromise or negotiation with China about slowing the technology is possible or even advisable? Oh, absolutely. I mean, here's the thing. This problem is not Godzilla, right? It's not like we don't know how to solve the problem of AI. There's a lot of good that will come from AI. And like we have done with lots of other breakthrough technologies from nuclear energy to advanced medicine, we can just put a regulatory regime on AI that keeps the good stuff, but protects us from the poison. For instance, outlying these chatbots, making sure that the models that they develop don't essentially take over systems that we rely on

33:55without human control. So we can pass a domestic regulatory scheme that makes sure that we don't get overwhelmed by AI. And we can also make AI a dominant issue with China. That's probably going to be what will have to happen is that the number one issue we talk to China about over the next 10 years is going to be putting some mutual guard rails on AI. Like for instance, making sure that it doesn't break out of human containment. Because China has an interest in not just like the United States, but Trump is not going to make it the number one issue. It probably won't happen, unfortunately, until there's a new president. I don't think it'll be too late at that point, but the clock is definitely ticking. Senator Murphy, I appreciate your time. Chris Murphy, thank you. Still ahead tonight. Thank you. The attempted massacre at a Canadian synagogue and the hero authorities there say save lives when exchanging gunfire with the would be killer. Also, next, the Venezuelan door dash driver shot by an ice officer in Texas talks reporters while in custody after his attorney said he has a bullet in his back. As questions remain, or what led up to the shoot.

34:59Whoa. Oh my god. Holy **** dude. Oh my god. Nice search for the scariest house in America has taken me to some unsettling places. Not by choice, but per my contract. Are you ready to go into my murder garage? The creepy. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time down here. You hear that? The spooky yikes. I don't like it. What is this? This is a Victorian body cooler. It's from the 1800s. I'm not feeling good about it. All news. Scariest house in America. Friday night at night on HGTV. The detour with David Chang on CNN now streaming with an all-access subscription.

36:00Whoa. Oh my god. Holy **** dude. Oh my god. What you heard there were gunshots. The sound of the latest ice involved shooting. This time in Austin, Texas over the weekend. Happen on Sunday captured by a witness with a camera. Tonight there are serious questions on whether or not the use of force was justified. That's the man shot sitting on the ground afterward. His attorney says he's now at an ice detention center with a slug still in his back. Federal authorities say he's undocumented. It was under deportation order. He called into a press conference this afternoon. More from CNN's Ed Lavendera. The Nemos Wilbur on the telephone. A dramatic phone call in the middle of a news conference with activists protesting the ice officer shooting of a Venezuelan food delivery driver Sunday in Austin. Wilbur Garcis-Bennis called from the South Texas detention facility where he's being held in immigration custody and took questions from journalists.

37:04Allegedly translated his words. I am not doing well due to the gunshot wound and I have not received the medical attention that I require. Whoa. Oh my god. This video has sparked a wave of anger across the city of Austin. The images capture an ice officer shooting and wounding Garcis-Bennis from Venezuela, who was working as a door dash driver. The video shows 28-year-old Garcis-Bennis with a gunshot wound in his back. He was then handcuffed after being pulled out of his car. His lawyer says ice took Garcis-Bennis into custody from the hospital with the bullet still in his body just hours after the shooting. He's struggling. Kate Lincoln Goldfinch is an immigration attorney representing Garcis-Bennis's family. When he was discharged from the hospital at four o'clock yesterday, he had a bullet lodged in his back and they told him they wouldn't remove the bullet. They sent him to ice with the bullet in his back without pain medication and he slept overnight in a processing center without a bed. She said she spoke with the Venezuelan immigrant by phone Monday morning.

38:07She says Garcis-Bennis told her an unmarked black truck rammed his vehicle twice. A source familiar with the incident tells CNN, ice officers were conducting targeted immigration enforcement operations Sunday based on license plate checks. The source added agents had a brief exchange with Garcis-Bennis, who federal authorities say is in the US illegally and had been ordered to be deported. Before he fled the scene in his car, the shooting took place shortly afterwards. Video of the scene shows two apparent bullet holes in the rear passenger window of the Venezuelan man's car and damage to the passenger door. Garcis-Bennis attorney says he remains in ice custody and has been interrogated by the agency. An SUV rode next to him and tried to hit him. He thought it was like an aggressive driver. It turns out it was not. He asked the ice officer if he could please at least pull over so that they could detain him. They said no and they typed him basically. He did a U-turn to try and

39:07find a spot to park so that he could go with them and they basically ran into him and then shot him. Protests erupted within hours of the Austin shooting. There's lots of people that are hurt. There is pain and their heart. There is pain. Whenever they leave their home knowing that they won't come back, we will all be more safe when ice gets to the hell out of Austin. It joins now. I understand you have some new information about his medical condition. Well, according to the 28-year-old Venezuelan immigrants, a lawyer, members of Congressman Joaquin Castro, staff visited. Garces Pedes in that detention facility in South Texas earlier today. We were told that he was complaining of extreme pain and that he is reporting to the staffers that he is losing a movement on the left side of his body. They're hoping to get him moved from this detention facility to a hospital. But the lawyer is concerned

40:10that perhaps this young man could be facing paralysis. So that is a great deal of concern for the family here tonight, Anderson. And, Levin Der, thanks very much. Now to Canada, we're authority to say a police officer in the city of Belville, Ontario, was critically wounded last night, exchanged in fire with a gunman outside a synagogue filled with people gathered for young, capable services. Several bullets hit the synagogue stained glass window. Thankfully, no one inside the building was wounded. CNN's Paula Newton joins us now with more. What do we know? I mean, Anderson, the more details that we learned throughout the day about this incident, the more everyone realized it could have been so much more serious. As you said, the Congress the worshipers inside the synagogue. Last week, they hired a police officer, as they always have to do for these events, police constable in an unmarked vehicle outside the synagogue. Police say that the suspect, approached in a truck, had a shotgun, immediately started shooting

41:16at the officer who returned fire. Another officer came onto the scene and basically officials described what was a shootout. I want you to listen now to an Ontario official with the special investigations unit. There are dozens of bullet holes at the street behind me. And some homes have been hit and there are some vehicles with shotout windows, that sort of thing. So it would have been quite the seed indeed. Would you say that there is evidence suggesting that this was a terrorist attack aimed at the Jewish community? I mean, I'd be speculating, but I mean, I think that common sense would say that probably was the case. Absolutely chilling there, Anderson. And there's no doubt in the mind of the worshipers in the synagogue that that constable was a hero as Jeff Smith, as we said, he is expected to recover, but it's still very serious injuries. The suspect is in hospital with life threatening injuries. I want to point out, I've been covering these attacks for

42:20a few years now. Mark Carney himself calls incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada specific and severe. And I did another interview just a few weeks ago with the Jewish community here. And they believe more needs to be done specifically. They want acts like this to be labeled terrorism. The minute the police believe that they have the evidence again. Everyone dealing with a lot here. This was a small community, Anderson, small synagogue. I can tell you in my community as well, the Jewish organizations have to have security. This police officer was hired the week before. They were afraid of this kind of an incident. And they say that it is no small feat that he returned fire the way he did. There were dozens of bullets thrown all over the neighborhood. Do we know anything more about the police officer? I mean, look, he's a 13-year veteran, as I said, he's expected to recover, but he was obviously incredibly vigilant. And you had the deputy police chief of that community really get very emotional describing what these officers do in a little community. It could have

43:22been anybody's neighborhood. You'd be walking your dog and all of a sudden you'd hear all of those loud bangs. You know, the worshipers there in the synagogue crouched down. And we saw the pictures of those stained glass windows. I mean, this was a severe threat. And again, that officer responsible for protecting all of those worshipers on the holiest night in the Jewish calendar. All in, dude. Thanks very much. Coming up, Presley Gerber, the son of Cindy Crawford and Randy Gerber has died at the age of 27 when investigators are learning about his death at a rehab facility. Cindy Crawford and Randy Gerber's son, model Presley Gerber, has died. He's on the far left in this photo with his parents. Gerber died Sunday at a rehab facility in Santa Monica. Police say they're investigating his death as is suspected overdose. He made his runway debut at 16, modeled for several fashion labels. He was also an entrepreneur. And more recently, Gerber

44:25opened up about his mental health struggles and drug use posted videos on Instagram and a series called Mental Health Mondays. And he worked with charities to raise awareness. He was 27 years old. A reminder, you can stream this show live or watch any CNN program, and special programming on demand anytime with an all-access subscription. Scan the QR code on your screen or go to cnn.com slash watch to learn more. The news continues. The source with Kaelin Collins starts now.