tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN June 11, 2021 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
anderson sat down for an exclusive interview with former president barack obama to talk about fatherhood, leadership and his legacy. you can catch it tonight at 11:00 right here on cnn. a lot of news tonight. it continues. let's hand it over to chris for cu"cuomo prime time." >> thank you, john. there are too many question marks in this doj situation. and they are not needed. let's be clear. if there were a clean explanation for what trump was up to at the doj with this obviously politically motivated probes, bill barr would be telling us how we have it wrong and we are the danger, not him, et cetera. and trump would be talking a red streak. instead, bill barr, the former ag claims he can't recall anything about the probing that he was at the center of. and that was clearly about
targeting trump's political opponents. instead, barr told "politico" he doesn't recall getting briefed, that doj prosecutors did any of this. wasn't aware of any congressman's records being sought in a leak case and that trump wasn't aware of who the doj was looking at in leak cases. remember, barr is also the man who couldn't recall during testimony whether trump had ever asked him to hope an investigation into someone. i want to ask you, what's more alarming, that they don't have a good explanation? that barr would lie this brazenly? or imagine if he really can't recall something he was at the center of. i mean, seriously? this story matters if for no other reason, that now any of you who thought that these were the people who were going to clean up the deep state, they weren't. 73 phone numbers, 36 email
addresses including sitting members of the house intel committee and their families. trump's department of justice demanded metadata on all of them, from apple, as part of the leak probe. they found nothing yet kept adding and invading. we're just beginning to learn the scale and scope of what could be one of the greatest abuses of power by a president in american history. but this really isn't a question of fact. they are clear. this is about putting this fraud into perspective. the deepest of deep state deception that they promised to counter, the swampiest of swamps. when they are the ones who pledged to drain the same. if you cannot own that what has happened here was wrong, then you do not care about making things better, period.
that's what matters about this. trump wanted to change the game for the better. remember all that b.s.? it needs to die tonight. secret seizure of data, congress, no good reason, no proof, i know there were grand jury subpoenas. and we will look at that. remember, you work a grand jury at your own behest as the prosecutor. they're not there to defend themselves. there are no rules of evidence. you get to tell them what you want to tell them and that's why everybody says you can indict a ham sandwich. there's a higher bar than getting a warrant. yes, there was process, but it doesn't mean that process can't be manipulated, and it can be corrupt and we all know it. tr
schiff and swalwell. they provided metadata, the numbers that were going around but no names and account subscriber information in terms of who they said they were looking for. but the other side of the equation gets a little bit fuzzier. they didn't give content or emails or pictures. the company says the 2018 subpoena from the doj contained no information about who the investigation was targeting or why. but it requested information on the targeted accounts beginning from the inceptions of the accounts through the day of the subpoena. that's typical. they are usually tailored in terms of window. however, the gag orders routinely extend far after that. why? to give prosecutors the benefit of time to work on their cases. now, microsoft tonight says it too received a subpoena in 2017 related to a congressional staffer's personal email account and as with apple, microsoft was also subject to a gag.
the good news is, the plot has been exposed and the staffers who helped lead the probe at the doj and question the same are still there. and, therefore, should cooperate in telling us why they did all this. senate democrat leaders tonight are threatening to subpoena trump's two attorneys general to -- it should be attorneys general, actually, to testify about the unprecedented action. a source tells cnn jeff sessions wasn't involved in the subpoenas related to the house committee because he had recused himself at the time from anything connected to the russia probe. that's a reasonable assumption. it's reasonable. they should look at it, but it's reasonable. bill barr, no such defense. he wasn't recused. he stands accused. he revived the leak investigations, according to who? the people who did the work. a number of people who spoke to the "new york times," cnn, echoing some of the reporting. that they were told to do it and
he was in the loop. after he became attorney general. even after, he was told that these initial probes had turned up nothing. barr also took the extraordinary step of seeking to review a gag order on apple. you don't buy that. so condemning. left and right can finally give ground to being reasonable. you know this was wrong, period. that's why trump is quiet since the news broke. since when does that happen? only when he knows he is busted. but remember, the biggest reveal here is that trump lied to you every time he told you this -- >> you still have deep state. but one by one, we're getting them out. you have deep state bad people. the swamp creatures are much deeper and worse than we ever
thought. and there is such a thing as the deep state. who would think? >> drain the swamp. we're going to drain the swamp of washington. >> it is time to drain the damn swamp. >> he was lying. he added the most swamp dragons, the most alligators, he had the swampiest administration. we've never seen people get kicked out of service at the rate or for the rationals that happened with his administration. and what we are now seeing is absolutely by definition deep state deception, the likes of which red and blue will tell you they have never seen before. yes, chuck grassley says investigations of members of congress are nothing new. but why? you don't investigate them in search of proof to show they did something wrong. you have proof they did
something wrong and then you continue to investigate. well, these were subpoenas from a grand jury. there you have it. no, that's the beginning. but you have the same people who are asked to do this say that they weren't getting any proof and we're told to continue. that's the part that matters. his own department of justice targeted his political opponents. including this house intel committee member. >> i hope trump supporters who fear big brother see that donald trump was the biggest brother we've ever seen in our country who did weaponize this to go all the way down the stack into, you know, the private communications of people he perceived as political opponents. >> trump's like nixon. trump's like nixon. don't do that to nixon. trump is worse. he didn't use the doj like this. this makes watergate look like jaywalking. what else don't we know about what they were up to? he was in office for four years. so the question is, how do we
find out and what should happen? that's the question. but here's what we know that should have a period at the end of it, trump was never going to drain the deep state. he was never going to drain the swamp. it doesn't matter, he didn't mean them. he was the worst and it is demonstrable because we've never seen anything like this. former attorney general under george w. bush, michael casey. he knows bill barr and he joins us tonight. i've missed you. it's good to see you looking well and i hope the family is well. >> they're well, thanks very much. and i've missed you too. >> all right. you don't mean it the way i do, but that's okay. let me ask you this, when bill barr says i have no recollection of any of these things that his own high place staff says that he was at the center of, what are we to make of that kind of i
can't recall? >> what you're to make of the statement is that the subpoena was issued before he got there. you're saying that he was at the center of these things. what he was at the center of, as far as i know, was insisting that leak investigations generally, not necessarily these, leak investigations generally that have been languishing as to which there was a great deal of pressure from people in the defense department and defense community who are severely hurt by national security leaks, that those be prosecuted and pursued. and so he got somebody to take a look to see which were viable and which were not. as far as i know, there's absolutely no indication that he was riding herd on these particular matters or these particular congressmen. >> you do know there's an indication because there's "new york times" reporting that says exactly the opposite. the guy he brought in was from new jersey and had no experience with these kinds of things. the premise that was based on
national security concerns, they declassified a lot of this information as they went along. so they took away their own premise. but we have interviews in the reporting of people -- >> chris -- >> who told the ag that there's nothing here and he said, reopen, keep going. >> he said to pursue cases generally. the notion of bringing in somebody from new jersey with no experience, i did something very similar when we had a problem with the destruction of the cia tapes. i brought in somebody from within the department but outside washington to see whether there was anything there. he did that with leaked cases generally, not necessarily with these. >> well, now do you know that or is that your take from the reporting? >> that's my take from the
reporting and it's my take from what i know of what was pending at the time which were a lot of other cases, other than these. >> right. but in the reporting, it doesn't say what you're saying right now. it says that these were specific. they wanted schiff, they wanted swalwell, they wanted former obama people. they found nothing, yet kept looking. i mean, just at the scale and the scope of this, mike, have you ever seen anything like it before? >> if -- i have not seen any investigation similar to this. on the other hand, there are many investigations that happen, that happen for the first time and the last time. this wouldn't be the first time. the -- if there were, in fact, leaks that appeared to originate in congress, there's every reason for those to be pursued. understand that leaking information isn't a game.
information is kept secret for a reason. and people who disclose it essentially are deciding that regardless of whether the information should be kept secret or not, they have their own agenda. they know better than the people who are charged with deciding whether information should be disclosed and they're going to go ahead with their own agenda. that's -- that's unlawful whether it's done by edward snowden or done by eric swalwell. >> but the problem was, it wasn't done. they found no proof. if they kept looking and expanding, they kept adding and invading, and they were told by staffers, some of whom are at high levels and still there, we're going to hear from them, mike, who told barr and others -- >> i'm sure we will. >> -- there is nothing here. we are uncomfortable continuing this. and they were told to continue. and that barr eventually had to go tell -- >> that's not what the -- >> yes, sir. that's what the reporting says. >> that's not what the reporting says, no -- >> it is what the reporting
says. >> i don't read it the same way, but go ahead. >> how do you read it, mike? >> i read it as they haven't been told to basically make sure that leak cases get pursued. which i did unsuccessfully and would have done in bill barr's place had i been there. >> you would have done them, but you wouldn't have done them like this, i would think, seeing you're how you're someone i respect and lean on as a mentor. you would have said show us with where the proof is and let's go from there. here, they never had any -- >> this was not -- >> go ahead. >> i don't know what proof they had. i don't know what reason they had to believe that information was coming from them or from people on their staffs. nor do you. nor do the reporters who wrote the story in the "new york times." >> that is true. these were grand jury subpoenas. i actually said that up at the
top. they had to have something to get the subpoena. but we both know that this is a very easily manipulated bar for any good prosecutor and this isn't even like an indictment. this is a different standard. and i'm not saying they didn't have manipulation -- >> prosecutors -- >> mike, why am -- >> prosecutors -- >> let me make it clear why i'm chasing on this. i'm not bad mouthing prosecutors. they'll be able to speak for themselves -- >> you're bad mouthing bill barr. >> i am. i can't believe he doesn't recall anything like this. it is beyond reasonableness that he would remember nothing about only things that are politically damaging. i can't remember trump asking me about going after anyone personally. we both know how that man dialogues. we both know what he was trying to do here. here's why i care, coequal branch of government -- we also both know that he pushed back repeatedly on trump, there was no reason to doubt the election,
he refused to indict jim comey, he refused to do a number of things. >> he is the only man to give jim comey second place to abu abu abusing when he took to the microphone and he did it out of political convenience. he took a step that no attorney general had taken or should take. i do not see him as captain candor. >> that is absurd. >> you know what he did with that memo. you know he tried to shorthand it and tried to make it seem it wasn't what it was. >> absolutely not. he stated the conclusions in the memo, including the part about not being able to exonerate the president, which is a standard that's unknown to the law, as you know. but nonetheless, he stated it. he also checked with mueller to see whether there was a problem with what he had done. >> what do you -- mueller
complained about what was happening. what was he supposed to do. he wasn't in control. he was working for bar. >> right. no, he was work for you and me. >> come on. you know who was on top of him and that's why he came out and did it that way. this is about a coequal branch of government. this is about going after the chairman of the house intelligence committee because trump didn't like him and going after the guy's family. going after minors. and never finding anything, closing the case and being told to restart it. this doesn't look bad to you, mike? >> chris, chris, prosecutors have subpoenaed the records of the families of people they're looking at to find out whether the family's accounts are being used. >> true. i agree. >> you'll remember that -- you'll remember that a congressman from new york who had a sex scandal was using his
wife's computer. >> absolutely. i'm talking about the house intel guy. they found nothing. they kept expanding and invading. at a minimum, you got to see what the inspector general says, but we got to have the people who are in charge of it. we got lucky that they're still at the doj which means they can't opt out of cooperation, as long as there's nothing criminal brought up. would you agree with me, at least, that this is something that has to be unearthed and revealed because it may be one of the biggest abuses of power we've seen. >> yeah, i'm sure we're going to take a good long look and i also believe that we will find that an investigation was pursued to a dry hole as many investigations are. but the notion that somehow they were trying to intimidate a member of congress is ridiculous. >> no, i never -- i never said it. not me. deal with one dope at a time, mike. deal with the dope in front of you. i never said anything like that.
but i will end on that. the predicate for this is, hey, this was national security. as you said, that's very important. here's the problem. the risk of contacts with the russians, where's the risk of contacts with russians that never happened? and where is the risk of a national security threat with dialogues that you had being declassified during the period of assessment and probing and investigating? you're declassifying the same -- >> that was. >> -- that you say was the risk. >> it was declassified after the fact. what it confirmed was something the russians already knew was the government had a wire on kislyak. having it and having it confirmed are two different things. it was confirmed -- >> i would argue the timing. this happened in 2020 when they were still looking at it and barr was going to reopen it.
that's when the intel guy declassified it and caused a little bit of problem for the continuation of this. i'm just saying, it doesn't look bad. it doesn't smell bad. it is bad. this is one of those situations where if there were a good explanation, bill barr would have it and -- >> you've already reached the conclusion of -- yeah, you've already reached the conclusion of the investigation that you say has to go on? >> no, not at all. >> you've already reached a verdict. it's bad. that's what you just said. >> here's my take on it. let me give you the context of what i'm saying. this is not a -- >> i got your take on it in your opening. >> and it's a smart one. >> i'll say. >> you would give the same one if he wasn't your buddy, mike. i understand why you believe -- >> he's not my -- understand something, he's not my buddy. i've never been in his house. he's never been in my house. i admire his public career. i admired it before. i still do. >> all right. i'll give you that clarification. but you were flattering --
>> he did things. >> he did things, what? last word to you, sir. >> i was accurate -- pardon? >> last word to you, sir. for doing trump's bidding. when trump wanted things done that he thought should not be done, he didn't do them. >> this will be the ultimate testament to that proposition, what he did here and didn't do and why. and former ag, i don't think i would be talking to you about doing anything like this. it's one of the reasons i need you on this show. i respect where you're coming from and why. i wish you well and i look forward to seeing you again. >> i wish you well too. thank you. >> take care. >> he doesn't like me but he
knows i love him. look, you have to argue through any political reckoning on this. it looks bad. where's the presumption of innocence. this isn't a trial. in light of these facts, the burden is on bill barr and the people who did this to tell us how the "new york times" and cnn and commonsense has this wrong. let's pick this up with two more valuable minds. one of them knows exactly what it's like to be publicly targeted by trump. former fbi agent peter strzok who once worked on the russia investigation and a former acting a.g. how does he think the doj's inspector general should be going on about this and what do these two guys think about what they just heard from former a.g. next. from...al quick stop...in... hyde park. (doorbell) excellent. and, tonight... i'll be eating the chicken pot pie from...founding farmers...in... foggy bottom. (doorbell) (giggle) oh, they're excellent. i had so many beignets
good boy! [laughs] ♪ hold my pouch. ♪ trust us, us kids are ready to take things into our own hands. don't think so? hold my pouch. introducing aleve x. it's fast, powerful long-lasting relief with a revolutionary, rollerball design. because with the right pain reliever... life opens up. aleve it, and see what's possible.
no, he's not in his room. ♪ dad, why didn't you answer your phone? your mother loved this park. ♪ she did. here to respond to the trump doj alleged abuse of power and what we heard from former a.g. michael casey is former acting u.s. attorney general as well as peter strzok, former fbi of counterespionage and author of
"compromised." gentlemen, thank you. first, let's get just our bar bearings here. have you ever seen anything like what is being reported? >> no, i haven't, except as was said in the earlier segment, there's a lot here that at least in hindsight you can say echoes the enemy's list of the 1970s. >> and, peter, the idea that, well, look, they went to a grand jury to get the subpoenas. obviously they had plenty of proof on this. it's all on the level. >> yeah, no, i don't agree with that, chris. clearly i agree with the attorney general to the extent that there are leaks of information that the government needs to investigate and if appropriate prosecute. but the scope of this activity, the breadth of all the various individuals that were subpoenaed, i've never seen anything like it in my 20 years in the fbi. >> and also a key aspect,
stuart, is that they found nothing and yet kept going, to the point where they had people who were, you know, junior to where peter was, but where they were coming to people and saying, we're not finding anything here. we don't know why we're doing this. >> that's the -- yeah, chris, that's the -- to me the key point of this. you can start an investigation with little, if any proof, the issuance of a grand jury subpoena is a formality. you quoted the famous remark about indicting a ham sandwich. this is much less than that. the subpoenas are really at the behest of the united states attorney or whomever is in the grand jury. but what the key fact is here as far as i'm concerned is that this proved early on to be a dry hole. the investigation, however many there were, the ones related to swalwell and schiff and others on the committee were in that package. they were held to be languishing
and the attorney general then said let's amp this up and move these on. and it was an outsider who was charged with doing it. he came by virtue of an endorsement from the united states attorney in new jersey who was the guy who the attorney general wanted to shift over to the southern district of new york to oust an incumbent who was being -- who was feared to be investigating things that related to the president. so it's indicative of the fact that mr. barr worked with a staff close to himself. we'll find out more from the inspector general about what career people might have done. but i think you'll find that there were senior career people who might have advised in cases like this who were never contacted at all. >> that's an interesting point. people being kept out of the circle in addition to people who were in the circle on the
workmen level saying they had misgivings. another point that was made, i got a lot of respect for the former a.g. and he says, well, bill barr only wanted to go after leak investigations in general. he may not recall these specific ones. i just believe that knowing barr, if he had a good explanation for what was going on, he would offer it. and the only time he's gone to this i don't recall device was in political sticky situation where is he wanted to separate himself, whether or not trump asked him to investigate and he used it one other time, i think. wouldn't he be doing better than i can't recall? >> i can't recall is a refuge of a man who doesn't want to tell the truth. let's think about that. one federal judge has found that bill barr lacked candor. a second judge described his interactions in the department of justice with regard to the mueller report memos as being
disingenuous. let's think about bill barr, who got on a plane and flew all of the world pursuing these crazy conspiracy theories about the deep state. there's no doubt in my mind that attorney general barr was absolutely well aware of what was going on. it doesn't matter that these were authorized in advance of his tenure as the attorney general. he arrived on scene and like so much else, the investigation of mike flynn was not languishing. he selected somebody who was put in there, turned that upside down and one of the gravest miscarriages of justice that i've ever seen. the sentencing of roger stone was not languishing. he reduced that sentence. that is attorney general barr's m.o. he picks people who can come in, place pressure to achieve the results that he and then president trump wanted to achieve. >> gentlemen, thank you for your perspective on this. appreciate it. we'll have more to discuss as we get into the interior parts of
how this was done and why it was. and it will be coming because they're still at the doj, the people who did it. i wonder what members of
trump's party make of this. well, here's our first indication. you hear that? nothing. only chuck grassley came out and said, investigating members of congress, not unusual. true. but it's usually because there's proof that you are using to initiate initiate curiosity. we have a lot to discuss with the next member of congress. he met with president trump yesterday. he has a beef of his own and, by the way, i got a small beef with him which will take care of first. let's get after it next.
at panera, we take care of dinnertime. we use fresh, clean ingredients to make mouthwatering masterpieces. order on the
panera app and get free delivery through june 13th. only at panera. two out of three guys experience hair loss by the age 35. kind of scary. that's why i use keeps. keeps offers clinically proven treatment, and the sooner you start the more hair you can keep. get started for $1 a day at keeps.com. introducing michelob ultra organic seltzer.
rely on the experts at 1800petmeds for the same medications as the vet, but for less with fast free shipping. visit petmeds.com today. our next guest is a republican congressman who supports the former president, even met with him yesterday. is that why the congressional black caucus won't let him? please meet byron donalds. good to have you on "prime time," sir. >> good to be with you this evening. >> i have breaking news, we went to your team, i said i would have you on asap and here you are. so are we good? >> we're good. listen, that was just a little
bit twitter love. we're good. it's good to be with your somehow this evening. >> the less you are on that toxic place, you look at the people who are on your thread on twitter, you want to know why the cbc has a problem with you, you have the hate parade following you on twitter. there are people who are into ugly ideas that i really hope you don't support. i want you here to have a fair hearing on what you say your problem is, all right? >> sure, fair enough. >> first, let's see if you can help your case with the cbc folks. they have not been specific about why they don't want you on except to say we want to work with people who share our policy, aims and means. we'll get to that what that means in a second. but when you look at what is happening here with the doj, can you admit that it smells bad, what is coming out of this reporting? >> well, look, i got a chance to read the "new york times" article from yesterday and even the one today. i think it's important for everybody to understand that the
department of justice at the time did take this to a grand jury. after that, you have to let the inspector general finish the investigation. one of the things we got to be very careful of is jumping to conclusions based upon one report that came out of the "new york times." how many people were quoted, what are the detailed level of sources? let the investigation run its course if the subpoenas were unjustified, that will come out in due time. one of the things being a member of congress, do you want to hear about your phone records being taken, no, you don't. but you have to let these investigations take their course. we got to be very careful, chris, not to jump to conclusions because that's how these narratives get built that actually end up being false in the long run. >> guys only say what you're saying right now when they're on the short side of the stick. this isn't what your brothers and sisters in the party were saying when it was about carter page, right? it was these people are going after him with a fisa warrant, it was wrong. we know that a grand jury subpoena is nowhere near the level of scrutiny you need to
get a fisa warrant. just because -- the bar here isn't whether or not the grand jury subpoenas were warranted, that's a very low bar of probative recognition. it's that they kept expanding and kept looking even after senior staffers said there's nothing here. that's the suspicious part and they happen to be the people that president trump hated most. >> well, two things on that point, number one, i speak for myself, what people say in the party, that's up to them. number two, as somebody who is actually pretty conservative, we'll talk about that in the next part of this interview, i've always been concerned about fisa warrants. not just when it comes to situations like that, but across the board, since the patriot act was passed. that's been my position when it comes to fisa. all i'm saying is this, this is new information. we haven't had an opportunity for it to be fully investigated. there's been no other sources that have come forward, to my knowledge. i'm not the reporter. i don't know what they have. one thing we also got to keep in mind, if you go back to 2017,
2018, there was a lot of information out in news media that you couldn't just pick up on reddit pages dealing with the russia probe. the other thing we know is that for all the talk about russia concl collusion, it came up to nothing. if you had something, you would have pressed charges, right? you didn't. it came up to nothing. let's be very -- >> i don't believe -- >> give me a second -- >> i don't believe in the standard of felony or its fine. collusion is behavior. not a crime. i know you know this. you're a very sophisticated member of congress. that's another reason i want you here. but we don't have to go backwards. let's go forwards. i have no problem with having more of a probe. i'll give you your chance to make your case. the cbc's argument against you has to be that they are about fighting for things they think are good for black americans. and highest on their list right now is securing voting rights and you are against the for the people act and the george floyd
justice in policing act and that has to be a predicate for them saying, he's not about what we're about. it's not just about color, it's about the content of policies that you want. they have offered admission to other republicans who are people of color before. it's not like some blanket bar of anyone who's not a democrat. what do you say about the fact that you reject those two policies, last word to you? >> first of all, when it comes to the for the people act, it would destroy election awe laws in all states across the country. in florida, we have the best elections in the united states. so why would i, as a member of congress, from the state of florida, allow washington, d.c., to completely eviscerate the best voting laws in the country. number two, when it comes to the george floyd act, when it comes to police reform, there's a lot of police reforms that i support. the one thing i don't support is getting rid of qualified immune fi. it will mean less officers on
the street, especially in the urban communities, like approximate the one i grew up in in brooklyn, new york. it makes it harder for poor people in our you are bar quarters, white, black or hispanic to have a safe community where your kids can go to school and thrive. my ideas when it comes to actually helping the black community might be different from the members of the cbc, but that doesn't mean i want the black community to thrive. of course, i want it to thrive. i want all communities in america to thrive. i think this should be an opportunity to have that full-throated conversation before the cbc makes a final decision. >> i'm going to go to the cbc. i'm going to get an answer. either they'll come on or present it and i'll have it and i'll bring you back and we'll go full circle. agreed? >> agreed. >> best to you in the family. thank you for -- >> i'm going to leave you alone. >> we'll have you back. >> any time.
we've long known the role of social connections and what they play in preventing suicide. isolation and fear compounds over time. people become susceptible to falling ill. we see dramatic increases in anxiety and depression. that's why we must be aware, dare to ask people how they're doing. and help those who need help get the care they need. the we saved the best for last tonight. are you ready? i have an 8-year-old that you cannot wait to meet. this little guy gave up his most prized possession to help his puppy. when i saw this story, i had to have him. that's next. online shopping ex. oh, man. carvana lets people buy a car-- get this-- from their couch. oh, how disruptive. no salesman there to help me pick out the car i need. how does anyone find a car on this site without someone like us checking in?
it can't all be bad because we're not all bad. if you were 8 years old and your puppy named bruce was sick, what would you do? most kids would cry. bryson kliemann from virginia did something else. he decided to sacrifice. he grabbed the pokémon cards, and he loves pokémon cards. he had been collecting them
since he was 4. he launched a yard sale and generated a lot of buzz. i spoke to his mom and i checked in on him and his doggie. >> tell me about bruce. >> he is doing okay now. his seven to ten days are over. >> what was wrong with him? >> he had parvo. >> oh, okay. that's a little scary. so is he your best buddy? >> yes. >> have you been helping out with the training? >> yes. >> really? >> uh-huh. >> when he makes a mistake or an accident, who cleans it? >> me. >> seriously? >> yep. >> you are the best 8-year-old i have ever met in my entire life, you know that? >> uh-huh. >> i have a bunch of dogs and a bunch of kids, and let me tell you, nobody likes the dog when they make an accident.
all of a sudden it's always daddy's dog, and i have to do all that. so it's very cool that you care. so you got a bit of a scare. you learned that produce had parvo and you heard that that was going to be expensive. what do you remember feeling when you heard about that? >> i felt really sad. really, really sad. >> and then you made a really interesting choice. you heard that this was going to be expensive. what did you want to do? >> i wanted to sell my pokémon cards for my dog. >> where did you get that idea? >> at school. i was drawing on the back of my paper, and then i started to write about my dog. >> where did you got the idea to sell the pokémon cards? >> i had a bunch, so i wanted to sell them.
>> how much do you like the pokémon cards? >> a bunch, a bunch. >> were you able to sell them fast or did it take some time? >> i got to sell them and people gave -- people gave me money. but they didn't get -- some of the people didn't get pokémon cards. >> now, what did that men to you that some people just wanted to help out and not even take the pokémon cards? >> it felt great. i was happy. because i didn't have to sell a bunch of my pokémon cards. >> kimberly, when you knew that your son knew about the puppy and needing to get him doctored up, and you heard what he wanted to do, what did you make of that? >> he first told me when he got off the bus that day -- i told him no at first.
i told him we would handle it. i went to school and got a picture of him and i cried. i was so touched. i couldn't believe it. >> not only did they not take some of the cards, but give money to help with the puppy, but you got some rare cards from a pokémon employee, is that true? bryson, do you want to answer that one? >> yes, it is true. >> wow. thank you. and his dad and everybody else who put good things inside this little man, that he's already making decisions at 8 that some of us spend a whole life trying to figure out, which is to give something that matters because there's something that matters more. you got it right, kimberly. >> thank you. >> thank you. and good luck to the pooch. tell him i said hello. will you do that, bryson?
>> yep. >> he's a dog. he's not going to know what you're telling him. good luck, little man. i look forward to see what you do in your life. >> okay. >> 8 years old. we're good too, just like bryson. we'll be right back. ♪ dad, why didn't you answer your phone? your mother loved this park. ♪ she did.
hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better cheers with your favorite fans. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. our team is devoted to your care, with free service adjustments and cleaning of your miracle-ear hearing aids for life. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage.
for the same medications as the vet, but for less with fast free shipping. visit petmeds.com today. all right. that's it for us. "don lemon tonight" with the best part of the show, the upgrade with laura coates starts now. anybody who were to confuse the two of you would need to turn off the tv immediately, ball up their fist, ram it into their face and then take a nap. yes, i'd be punching myself in the face. we're not doing it. you know, i want to ask you something, because you are a