[John Vause, Cnn Newsroom Anchor:] You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. Ahead this hour: terror on the underground. Authorities race to find those behind the deadly attack on the St. Petersburg Metro. Plus, President Trump renews his baseless wiretapping claims at the sound of a busy critical week for his presidency. And later, breaking through autism. I'll speak to the young woman with nonverbal autism who's become a voice of autism, ahead. Hello everybody, great to have you with us. I'm John Vause and this is now the second hour of NEWSROOM L.A. Russian authorities call it a terrorist attack. An explosion ripped through a subway in St. Petersburg killing 11 people, wounding dozens more. Witnesses describe a smoke
[Oren Liebermann, Cnn International Correspondent:] They have, and it has already been a busy morning in the Sunni Square as the day has gotten started. A number of the people going into or out of this metro stop here behind me which was closed down, this is one stop this and the next stop, the attack happened between these two stops so this was closed for a while. But opened early this morning and it has been busy since, many coming here to stop at what has become a very busy memorial and a growing memorial. Especially, as Russia marks three days of mourning starting with the day we have seen a number of people laying flowers here. You can see there are hundreds of flowers as well as dozens if not, hundreds of candles as people here pay respects and there's a very similar memorial to this one station over at the technological institute station. And that is again that's the next stations, so it's between these two stations that the attack happened. It was in fact at that other station that President Vladimir Putin came late last night and paid his own respect as well. Condolences pouring in from around the world for the victims here: 11 dead, dozens more are wounded, and some still in critical condition. That as a nation in mourning, investigators try to figure out who's responsible for this and how this happened.
[Vause:] So, clearly, this is just still early in terms of the investigation, but exactly where is it now focusing?
[Liebermann:] So, police investigators have taken a number of steps both interviewing witnesses and metro employees as well as going through a number of metro stops, which is how as you pointed out, they found another device and were able to diffuse it before it exploded. But investigators haven't given any sort of indication about who their suspects are who their main suspects are at least. There are sort of two traditional suspects if you will: one would be checking separatist who carried out a number of attacks on Russian soil but that was more in the early 2000's. Although they have carried out attacks as recently as 2013, that has essentially quieted down a bit in the last four years and that leaves the other main suspect which would be ISIS, which has carried out announced the number of threats against Russia, and famously claimed the bomb the metro jet flight, the Russian charter flight over Sinai about a year and a half ago, so those would be the two prime suspects, and yet, there's been no indication from Russian officials and investigators on which one they may suspect at this point as the investigation continues.
[Vause:] As we said, it is still early. Oren, thank you. Oren Liebermann, live in St. Petersburg. Thank you. Well, for more now, in Seattle Washington, Global Follower for the Woodrow Wilson Center and former CNN Moscow Bureau Chief, Jill Dougherty; and here in Los Angeles former FBI Special Agent, Bobby Chacon. Bobby, first to you, does the method of the attack, what we know about it, does that say anything about who may have been behind it? We also have learned there was an improvised explosive device, which was, you know, basically defused. It didn't go off, it was disguised as a fire extinguisher.
[Bobby Chacon, Federal Bureau Of Investigation Former Special Agent:] Yes. Well, I think that you know, if we're looking at previous recent ISIS attacks I think it could be it could fit the profile of an attack. In other words, it wasn't that sophisticated. It looks like the device that went off may have been secreted in a briefcase that was simply left on the train in the train car. This wasn't an attack where say the device was actually attached to the tracks, that might cause a derailment of the train and cause more death and destruction. This was a, you know, more of a simplistic delivery of a device which could have been in a backpack or, in this case, a briefcase and the other device in the same manner. So, to me, this does look like an ISIS-inspired event, if you take some of their some of their other recent less involved attacks.
[Vause:] And also, ISIS have issued a number of threats recently, Bobby, regarding Russia's military offensive in Syria, in particular, it's bombing campaign in Aleppo.
[Chacon:] Oh, yes. And ISIS has made no secret of the fact that they want to and intend to hit Russia in Russia. And in fact, there was an attack last year on two police officers just outside of Moscow. Of course, the incident with the airliner that was left on its way to St. Petersburg, in fact, that was taken down by ISIS. So, yes, they've made no mistake that they're coming from Russia, and they intend to carry out attacks.
[Vause:] Jill, is this attack is linked back in some way to Russia's to military offensive in Syria, will there be a political price for President Putin?
[Jill Dougherty, Cnn Former Moscow Bureau Chief And Global Follower For Wilson Woodrow Center:] Well, it does have, you know, aspects that can kind of play both ways. I mean, you do have the President looking Presidential, continuing with his schedule, then going over and laying some flowers at the makeshift memorial, and showing, you know, strength, et cetera. So, that is what he would want to show. On the other hand, it kind of does undermine the faith, let's say, of people that he can protect them from outside forces, from terrorism. That's always been the issue with Syria, whether Russia supports for this. Essentially, you have support for Shiites, that would be Iran which is an ally with Russia right now in Syria, against the Sunnis in most of the Muslims in Russia are Sunnis. So, there always has been a worry that maybe there would be some type of backlash and that's the dilemma right now. But you do have this other political side of it, which is President Putin in that conversation with President Trump who called President Putin to express condolences. Both of them agreeing that you have to fight terrorism and get rid of terrorism as quickly as possible, so, that for President Putin would be a good sign.
[Vause:] Bobby, I've heard some commentators say that Russia is now in the front line or it's the number one target when it comes to Jihadi groups. Do you think that's a fair comment?
[Chacon:] Yes, I think it could be, certainly. I think Russia has probably one of the largest numbers of foreign fighters, you know, fighting the war in Syria against the Assad regime of any non-Muslim country. I think they even have they may even have more than France which, you know, leaves Europe in exporting fighters to that region. So, I think it's entirely possible.
[Vause:] OK. So, let's go on to what the response here that we're hearing from the Russian President, Jill because this was the first public response from Vladimir Putin after the blast. Listen to this.
[Vladimir Putin, Russia President:] There's been an explosion in the St. Petersburg metro. There are killed and wounded. And at the beginning of our meeting, I'd like to express my sincere sorrow and condolences to relatives of those who died or who were injured.
[Vause:] And Jill, not much in terms of what he said but, sort of his demeanor, did he seem to be unusually subdued to you?
[Dougherty:] Well, not really. I mean, after President Putin unfortunately, has the history having had to deal with a number of terrorist attacks. So, I think it was kind of a measured careful response. At that point, he was saying it could be terrorism, it could be other reasons, and then he went on with that meeting with President with the President of Belarus and then, you know, pretty much continued with his day except for that visit again to lay the flowers. So, I wouldn't necessarily read anything into it, at that point. He just was being very careful. And at that point, they had to wait until the investigation is over. Once it is over, we have to listen very carefully to what he says and also to his actions, what he does when they actually do determine who carried out this attack.
[Vause:] We also heard from the U.S. President, moments after the blast. This was Donald Trump.
[Donald Trump, United States President:] Terrible. Terrible thing. Happening all over the world. Absolutely, a terrible thing.
[Vause:] These two leaders have since spoken by phone as you mentioned Jill, but how will those remarks be seen by many Russians?
[Dougherty:] Oh, very positively. In fact, in some of the Russia media, they're noting that he was the first person who made a comment in the west, among leaders, after that attack. So, it's what Russians actually have been hoping to hear perhaps, of course, not having been victims of a terrorist attack themselves, but hoping that the United States would come on board as they always put it and join forces with Russia and fight terrorism. That's what they wanted. It's what President Putin has pushed for and that's what President Donald Trump has been talking about. But a lot of this got highly politicized in these hearings et cetera about the Russian interference in the American election. So, it's he I don't think, obviously, that President Trump has been able to move at all as quickly as he wanted to do with that to work with Russia against terrorism.
[Vause:] And Bobby, finally to you, I'm just curious, was it a coincidence that Vladimir Putin was in St. Petersburg at the time of this attack, do they just get their timing they're just lucky I guess, in their timing?
[Chacon:] I doubt it. Although it could be. But, you know, I think that, you know, if ISIS wanted to make an even stronger in the attack itself is that, look, we cannot only attack you on your own soil but we can actually attack you in the very city and in the very vicinity where your president where Putin is. And so, you know, there've been posters around the internet and stuff with Putin with bullet holes in him and other things, you know, so ISIS is definitely, you know, put President Putin in the cross hairs and so this could be one of those ways in which they're saying that they can get close to him. You know, it's surprising that there's been no claim of responsibility yet, but, you know, we're still kind of early in it and, you know, I that's one of the things I'm waiting to hear.
[Vause:] Yes. As are so many others. Bobby, thank you. Bobby Chacon and Jill Dougherty, thanks so much for being with us.
[Chacon:] Thank you.
[Vause:] The U.S. President is sending his son-in-law and who also happens to be a Senior Advisor on a diplomatic mission to Iraq. Jared Kushner made the unannounced trip on Monday. He met with Iraqi officials in Baghdad. He was invited by the U.S. top general for the trip. Our Ben Wedeman reports from Erbil in Northern Iraq.
[Ben Wedeman, Cnn Lead Correspondent:] It was a get-to-know-you-visit to one of Washington's most difficult military and diplomatic challenges. The special advisor to President Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner came to Baghdad and met with Senior Iraqi officials including Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi. 36-year-old Kushner has no diplomatic or military experience, and this is his first visit to Iraq. Kushner was joined in his meetings in Baghdad by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford and General Stephen Townsend, the Commander of the anti-ISIS International Coalition. They discuss the battle for Mosul and continue the American support for Iraq and its war against ISIS. Their visit comes at a time when the offensive to retake Mosul has reached its most difficult phase with bloody street to street fighting and mounting civilian casualties. Although President Trump recently said, things are going very well in Iraq. Monday, the Iraqi military put out a statement saying it would be setting up safe corridors for civilians to evacuate West Mosul's old city in preparation for a new push to drive ISIS out of the area. I'm Ben Wedeman, CNN, reporting from Erbil, Northern Iraq.
[Vause:] Well, it seems the U.S. President is trying again to divert attention away from the Russia investigations. This time, Mr. Trump, citing at Fox News report, claiming that President Obama's former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, requested what's known as the "Unmasking" of those associated with the Trump campaign. In other words, revealing their identity of those who're caught up in surveillance of usually a foreign agent. Usually, those names are concealed or masked. Former Senior Intelligence official tells CNN, Rice's role at the time allowed her to legally request some information to be unmasked and that does not mean that information was necessarily late. Well, joining us now for more Democratic Strategist, Dave Jacobson; Republican Consultant, John Thomas. OK. It seems right now; the whole unmasking issue is not the story which Fox or the President believed that it might be. Let's listen to a Democrat Congressman, Jim Himes.
[Jim Himes, United States Congressman From Connecticut:] There's absolutely nothing unusual about unmasking. We get all kinds of intelligence intercepts all the time. And it involves masked U.S. person information, it could be a reference to a U.S. person, it could be a U.S. person talking.
[Vause:] So, Dave?
[Dave Jacobson, Democratic Strategist:] Look, Donald Trump is the deflector in chief. At a time when his poll numbers are sinking, they're more reflective not just a sinking ship, they're reflective of the titanic. They're almost at the bottom of the ocean. This is a guy, according to The Hill newspaper today, was polling with an approval rating of 34 percent today. So, he's trying desperately to do anything to change the conversation away from the Russia probe. And this is the latest sign of him trying to change the subject, yet again.
[Vause:] OK. Here's before we get to John, here's a little more on the whole unmasking issue. It comes from the former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell. OK, this is what he writes, "Senior officials in the U.S. government, when they see one of these intelligence reports that say U.S. person one or U.S. person two, they can go back to NSA and ask, who is that person? They have to have a good reason for asking that question. They have to explain that reason to the NSA. Once the request is made, NSA says yes or no. And when that gets approved it gets approved for the individuals who specifically requested the unmasking. It is not unmasked broadly." So, John, I found that on the Google machine. Couldn't the President have found it out by picking up the phone?
[John Thomas, Republican Consultant:] Yes, I mean, he could have, but it's still there are unanswered questions here. Number one, Susan Rice who did a mask list, why is it that just a week or two ago she's said she knew nothing about it, she's never heard of this. She doesn't know what the President is talking about, and just seen that there is unanswered questions as to why she wanted it unmasked and who directed her to have it unmasked. I don't think it's cutting dry even if unmasking does happen regularly. Why Trump? Why around the election time? And why have this selective memory that it never happened in the first place?
[Vause:] Dave, you know, a good point. There does seem to be a few issues here which need to be clarified.
[Jacobson:] I think the real issue though is Donald Trump has been singularly focused on these so-called leaks for the last few weeks with all of these stories, sort of exposing the Russia great scandal and here he is citing a story that really is emblematic of other leaks and so I think it screams hypocrisy and that's the real big issue here.
[Vause:] OK. And looks like the Senate. Let's move on is about to go nuclear over the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, listen to this.
[Patrick Leahy, United States Senate Democrat:] My conscious would not allow me to ratify the majority of leaders act. Not last year, not this year. I will not, I cannot support advancing this nomination.
[Chuck Grassley, United States Senate Republican:] If the Democrats will filibuster this person of the high quality is, that there isn't any justice that a Republican will put forth that they would get his that they would support.
[Vause:] OK. So, John explains the nuclear option here for Republicans keeping in mind that most people around the world think that a filibuster is a filling for a sandwich. And why do Republicans think they have no other choice?
[Thomas:] Yes. And I most of your viewers probably think the nuclear option means Trump is finally about to press the nuclear button. No, no, it just means that it turns the confirmation process to a simple majority and set a meeting to thirds and Republicans do have a simple majority to confirm nominee Gorsuch to the process. Here's the larger thing, it's it's not that Neil Gorsuch is one of the most qualified nominees that Trump possibly could have nominated, the trouble is that the Democrats don't want to give this guy an inch. They are the party of no now and it really is irrelevant of whether who the nominee is. In this case what so ridiculous about this is how well qualified Neil Gorsuch is for the position.
[Vause:] And that does seem to be, you know a fairly reasonable point. The standard for confirming a Supreme Court judge simply is that person qualified or not? You know, political leanings or you know whether or not you like the particular rulings, it's all about their qualifications and there are a lot of people out there saying Gorsuch is qualified.
[Jacobson:] Well look. Last time I checked Barack Obama was elected to a four-year term and this seat opened up back in February, almost a year before the November Presidential Election. He wasn't elected to a three-year term it was a four-year term and so if we're talking about qualifications, Merrick Garland got widespread bipartisan support. Republicans' and Democrats said that he was highly qualified and the justice didn't even have an opportunity to have a formal hearing before the Judicial Committee whether will up or down vote by the entire United States Senate. And so I think, the challenge here, the Democrats have, is number one, they actually had a nominee that didn't get a hearing number one and number two, Gorsuch is out of the mainstream. This is a guy who didn't during the hearing didn't enthusiastically endorse and recognize the validity of Brown versus board of Education, number one. And number two, he has a long history of citing with big red corporations over people if you look at the hobby lobby case. And so I think Democrats go ahead.
[Thomas:] This message is just sour grapes because Merrick Garland didn't confirm because the Senate upheld a long standard tradition that in the election year you punt until the next office holder moves in. Is it not even sour grapes? I feel like you need a better reason to block Neil Gorsuch in that. [1:20:14]
[Jacobson:] Well listen during the election year, by the way, this was before the New Hampshire primary vote. This is before the South Carolina primary vote. We didn't know if they were Republican or Democratic nominee was. It was very early in the Presidential contest.
[Vause:] Yes. And you know probably, you know it's one of those moments that people just need to move on. And find the solution that makes everybody happy but I don't think it will. Thanks for being with us.
[Jacobson:] Thank you.
[Thomas:] Thanks.
[Vause:] Well, coming up here on NEWSROOM L.A., Donald Trump taking on North Korea just days before he's set to meet with the leader if China. We'll have the latest from Beijing, in a moment.