Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Close Calls; MH370 Mystery; Race for 2016 Heats Up; Zimbabwe Officials Have Called for Hunter's Extradition; Black Children More Likely to Live in Poverty. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 01, 2015 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:30] POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. 4 o'clock Eastern and I'm Poppy Harlow. Thanks so much for being with us today.

We begin with an unnerving few moments in the sky over JFK Airport in New York City. At least two commercial airlines - Friday, just a few hours apart -- coming in close contact with a drone. Both planes were approaching landing when they reported seeing the drone just about 100 feet away.

CNN's Nick Valencia has the details for us.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Poppy, two incidents at the same airport just hours apart. The FAA tells us close calls between drones and commercial airplanes have more than doubled since last year.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

VALENCIA (VOICEOVER): Two incidents in one day at the same airport. CNN has now learned of a second close call between a drone and a commercial airline in the skies above New York City.

Around 2:30 Friday afternoon, JetBlue flight 1834 reports seeing an unmanned aircraft on approach to JFK. Less than three hours later, a second encounter with the drone, this time by a separate airliner. Delta flight 407 prepares to land at JFK Airport with 154 people on board when the pilot spots a drone on the southwest side of the plane, just about 100 feet below. The pilot immediately contacts air traffic control.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TOWER: 407, did you by any chance get the color or type?

COCKPIT: No. It was not close enough to be able to tell.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

VALENCIA (VOICEOVER): Then JFK tower warned other pilots of the possible danger flying around them.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TOWER: JetBlue 943, use caution for this arrival. The one that's ahead of you reported a drone at the Floyd Bennett Field over there so you might see that (inaudible).

COCKPIT: Yeah, we're on (inaudible) so we're probably considerably higher than he was but we're watching out for it.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

VALENCIA (VOICEOVER): Phil Derner of NYCAviation.com weighed in. Derner said without a doubt, this was a close call. He explains a drone flying within 100 feet of a plane can easily get sucked into an engine or worse.

PHIL DERNER JR., NYCAVIATION.COM: These drones are made with aircraft aluminum, similar parts to the aircraft that it's about to strike. Going into an engine can destroy an engine. Going into the cockpit window can injure a pilot or even kill a pilot.

VALENCIA (VOICEOVER): Scares like the one at JFK happen more often than you think. The FAA reports at least two drone incidents each day. That's an average of 60 close calls each month.

In the cases of Delta flight 407 and JetBlue flight 1834, both the planes landed safely. The FAA tells CNN it's investigating both incidents.

(END VIDEO)

VALENCIA: It's unclear if the same drone was involved in both incidents. The FAA tells CNN that they are looking for whoever operated one or both of the drones.

Poppy?

HARLOW: Nick, thank you very much for that.

Let's talk more about this with someone who flies commercial planes for a living. CNN aviation analyst and commercial 777 captain Les Abend is with me.

All right. So, granted these are small and this was likely recreational, right, and not someone with nefarious intentions though we don't know, what can a drone of this size do to a huge 777 plane, for example?

LES ABEND, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Yes, good evening, Poppy. It -- anything is possible. I mean, this is a small device so mass times velocity could make it absolutely worse. It can do dent at the least amount of damage or go into an engine and possibly cause severe damage where it'd have to be shut down. The airplane -- we're trained to deal with an engine shutdown but it could go into cockpit windows. I mean, there's various vulnerable places that this particular device could cause -- could cause a little bit of havoc. I now want to caution you that this is -- this is a rare circumstance. I personally have not seen (inaudible). I did depart JFK last night about 11:45 at night. I did not encounter any of these nor was there any reports about that at that particular time. I know it sounds like that these are two different spots. To me, it seems like there's somebody that just wants to take a close-up picture of an airborne airplane and - like you said -- not nefarious. But I just want to caution you that or make the public feel a little bit better that the chances of this really doing serious damage to an airplane is fairly minimal but it could impact in the wrong places, certainly.

[16:05:07]

HARLOW: Right, of course, if it went into an engine, like we've seen happen with birds before. That could be a huge problem. Here's the thing -- this technology is advancing so quickly and the regulation just isn't catching up to it. These are not supposed to -- it's not legal to fly these anywhere near airports, especially a huge airport like JFK. What needs to happen on that front? You've got the FAA regulating both the planes and also, frankly, commercial drones.

ABEND: Well, they should be regulating everything in the sky and in fact, they are with certain type of service drones that they have to have certificates of waiver if they're commercial and so on and so forth. But with these, I think it's important -- unfortunately -- we're going to come down on the -- on the responsible folks that have been radio control people for many, many years. But I think it's time to start licensing. You start licensing, there's -- at least, there's some sort of paper trail and then if you start registering these particular devices, indeed, at least we can track these devices back to a particular individual or individuals and then, of course, have punitive damages as far as fines, jail terms -- definitely -- would probably dissuade people from doing this kind of irresponsible stuff.

HARLOW: I think it certainly would.

All right. Les Abend, thank you very much.

Now to Malaysia Airlines flight 370 that suddenly has heated up in this search in the discovery of an airplane part that many experts believe comes from a Boeing 777.

Right now, the piece is sitting in a lab in France. It arrived there today. Forensic experts are closely going over it, deciding whether or not this indeed did belong to the long-missing plane, Malaysia Airlines flight 370. They will try to find clues that may help them find the rest of the plane.

The parts that washed up on Reunion Island this week in the Indian Ocean is a flaperon and that is where we find CNN's Erin McLaughlin.

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN COREESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, the piece of debris left the island last night. It arrived in France today. Real forensic work though won't begin until Wednesday and air technicians really have a number of priorities. They're not only going to be looking to be able to see definitively whether or not this piece of debris is in fact from MH370, but they're also going to be analyzing the sea life that has grown on the debris in the hopes of being able to pinpoint its origin. They're also going to be looking at the damage sustained to the debris in the hopes of gleaning clues as to how the plane may have gone down.

Now, as for the island, the search continues for the wreckage. Cleaning crews still combing the beaches, trying to find more debris. They're also analyzing the currents around the island, the hope of finding more places where debris may be because each piece of debris really giving them important clues not only as to how the plane went down but also to where the actual wreckage may be.

Poppy?

HARLOW: Erin, thank you very much.

Also, when you look at this, this piece of airplane, whatever it turns out to be is certainly affected by spending a long time in the ocean. What we see on it, what can that tell us, the condition of the metal, what's growing on it, the barnacles -- they all hold valuable clues that will help investigators figure out how it possibly ended up on Reunion Island.

Nick Mallos is with us. He's a conservation biologist. Also with us, Professor Lawrence Kobilinsky. He is a forensic scientist.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.

And as we talk, we will show you the piece and all the barnacles on it that we're talking about.

Nick, let me begin with you. When you look at this piece and you look at the barnacles -- if we could fill it up here -- what do they tell us about how long perhaps it's been in the water?

NICK MALLOS, CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST: Well, I think the size of the barnacles certainly can tell -- explain the -- to a certain extent -- the duration at which this debris has been floating. But the barnacles alone will not be a silver bullet to inform exactly where the plane may have entered the water and how long it's been at sea. Barnacles actually -- despite having a shell -- are actually larval which means they drift at sea for long periods of time until they find something to attach to. So it could be that these barnacles attached several weeks prior to this wing washing ashore or it could be that they have actually been attached for much longer periods of time. So the size may help inform that as they -- as they have a closer look.

HARLOW: Lawrence, when we look at something that has -- if this is from MH370, then it has been in the water for about 17 months and some have looked at this and said it's in too good of shape for that. What's your assessment?

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: I don't think it's - at all that that's true.

[16:10:03]

I think that examining the barnacles will tell us a lot about the general region that that debris originated from. It may be the main lead that will point back to the place where they are doing their searching right now. We know this because there are probably more than 1200 species of barnacles and all of them like to grow in warm water like the Indian Ocean but some species grow in some places and not other places. And because of that, one can do a DNA analysis and identify the species that might help us understand the general region where that debris originated from. It is not a silver bullet - I agree with Nick -- but it can lead to some information and the size of these barnacles, they do grow at a certain rate and so it is consistent with being at least a year if not more old.

HARLOW: Nick, what about the drift patterns? Because what this really does -- the fact that it was found so far away from where many were looking at -- is that it brings together two different search areas about 4,000 miles apart. What can this tell us -- the barnacles, for example -- about the drift pattern?

MALLOS: Well, I think, Poppy, the drift pattern -- barnacles aside -- the patterns are very well-defined in the Indian Ocean of how the currents kind of oscillate in a counterclockwise direction around the basin. And we know there's a very strong current that runs east to west along the equator. And so the search patterns that are taking place off the coast of Australia where the current efforts are being placed, it is certainly plausible and possible that debris that would have deposited into the water there would drift slightly north and then catch that strong moving east to west currents which would then deposit the wing onto the shores of Reunion Island.

HARLOW: And, Professor Kobilinsky, before I let you both go, if there were an explosion -- because we don't know what happened to this plane -- if there were an explosion, would any residue from an explosion still be present on that wing?

KOBILINSKY: If we were talking about a seat of a plane, there might be residue that would remain behind. But I think given the length of time and being in the ocean, I really don't think you're going to find gun -- any kind of explosive residue. On the other hand, if there was an explosion, there might be evidence of that on the outer skin of the flaperon and obviously, the right kind of analysis might reveal that or if the plane was on fire -- for example. There's a possibility they can tell that.

HARLOW: All right. Professor Kobilinsky, thank you very much. Nick Mallos, thank you as well.

Coming up next, Hillary Clinton's wealth was just one thing that we learned from a huge amount of documents that were all revealed last night ahead of the weekend. We will tell you what else was in those documents and why they were all released at the same time, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:15:01]

HARLOW: All right. To politics now.

And a host of information released last night about Hillary Clinton's health and her finances. Bill and Hillary Clinton made nearly $141 million over the last eight years -- that is according to a document dump that was posted on her campaign website. As for the Democratic presidential candidate's physical health, her doctor says, "she is fit to serve as president."

We are learning all of this as another batch of emails from her time as Secretary of State was also released.

Our Sunlen Serfaty joining us now in Washington.

Let's start with her health. So her doctor's saying she's in good health. People looking at her -- 67-years-old right now, one of the older candidates, saying "all clear"?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Poppy. This was a summary released by her physician. It wasn't her full medical disclosures and that's an important point to bring up. But this physician did give her a clean bill of health and was notably says that she has recovered fully from that health scare that she had in 2012 -- a concussion, a blood clot. Also, we know from this health exposure that she is still taking blood thinners though on a daily basis as it relates to that blood clot scare.

But this disclosure said she's in good health. She does yoga. She walks. She swims. So this is one -- as you said -- of many disclosures that the Clinton campaign released yesterday.

HARLOW: What about her wealth? Because we have heard her on the campaign trail take on Wall Street, take on corporate greed. And at the same time, the net income for her and her husband -- about $141 million. Big speaking fees, her book, et cetera. Are Republicans using this -- her wealth -- as a way to say, "Look, she can't relate to average folks?"

SERFATY: Yes. Absolutely. And I suspect that throughout the duration of the campaign, this will be one of many attack lines that Republicans have on her. That's -- as you just saw up on the screen, $140 million Bill and Hillary Clinton earned over the -- just the last seven years of this newest released financial disclosure. So certainly, that's standing contrast to her projecting this image that she can relate to everyday people, someone who she's promised on the campaign trail to fight for middle class Americans and I think a lot of people remembered her comment after just after she declared her presidency that she was broke -- her and Bill were broke when they left the White House. So I'm sure that is going to turn into a regular attack line from Republicans.

HARLOW: But is she saying anything about it? Is she responding to those who call her out and to Republicans who say, "Look, she can't relate with you"? Has she said anything, Sunlen? Like, "I wasn't always wealthy" or "how much money I have doesn't impact what I fight for." Is she not responding?

SERFATY: Well, she hasn't responded specifically but when they released these forms, they put out a lengthy statement from Clinton on the campaign website and to her -- in that statement, (inaudible), it was almost like a pre-buttal of the arguments she expected. She said, "This is a long way from my first job, getting paid $16,000." So clearly, she wants to make a connection to her roots and connection to her beginnings there, knowing that this big number -- it's certainly going to sit -- withstand some scrutiny.

HARLOW: All right. Sunlen, thank you for the reporting as always.

Coming up next, Donald Trump has been a presidential candidate for -- it's been a little over a month now. He has been a celebrity for decades.

Up next, I will speak with someone who knows him incredibly well. She authored a major book with him and she'll talk about what she's seen from him, even the Donald Trump that we don't always see publicly. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:01]

HARLOW: He will be potentially the biggest attraction at next week's Republican debate on August 6, Thursday night, even though Donald Trump is telling anyone who will listen that he's not a debater. He hasn't done it before, he's not worried about it. He's focused on job creation. That is what he says.

So what's going to happen when he takes the stage and can he dominate the debate like, frankly, he has dominated the campaign so far?

Let's talk about all of this with Kate Bohner. She co-wrote a book with Donald Trump that is called "Trump: The Art of the Comeback". She is now managing director of DMS Offshore Investments.

Thank you for being here, Kate. Let's look at...

KATE BOHNER, CO-AUTHOR, "TRUMP: THE ART OF THE COMEBACK": Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: Let's look at the numbers. Quinnipiac poll at this week has Trump leading the way as so many other polls have -- 20 percent -- followed by Scott Walker and Jeb Bush. You told me last week, he is basically adding a new chapter to Comeback and you once wrote, obviously, that book with him. When you watch on the campaign trail, how is he different than the Donald Trump you know? Because you've told me he has this incredible sense of humor -- I don't think we always see that.

BOHNER: Exactly. He is definitely more audacious than he was back in the 90s 'cause you remember he -- there was the real estate depression 2003 and so at that point, I think he was more grounded a little bit, maybe a little bit humbler than he is today, had such an enormous string of successes since then. But I'm curious about how he is going to be in the debate next week because I think he's setting expectations a little bit low.

[16:25:06]

HARLOW: So let's roll that down so everyone can listen to how he answers the question when he was asked how he would debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not a debater. I produce jobs. I'm not a -- I never did that before. I never stood at a podium and debated a large number of people.

I've never debated before. I'm not a debater. I get things done. I don't talk about it. I get it done. Politicians talk about it. These guys debate every night of their life. That's all they do is debate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Is he hoping -- do you believe -- that people will try to attack him -- his opponents -- on-stage and that will play into sort of his narrative that the party establishment wants to bring him down?

BOHNER: That's a good point. I think, probably, he is thinking about that. But knowing Trump the way I knew him back then is that he really -- he loves the impromptu. He loves being on-stage and not having a script and not having been coached about what to say, what not to say, how to be politically correct or -- I think what he likes about this debate and why he's trying to underplay in advance of the debate is he wants to be that guy that's bursting with all of these opinions and sort of almost -- to his advantage -- maybe taking the content off-track a little bit.

HARLOW: I think it's important to also look at the women's vote in this election when it comes to Trump because although he's done incredibly well in these national polls, he has trailed on some key states like Iowa and New Hampshire, also nationally, when you look at his unfavorability rating among women. You had the whole -- as you called it -- "breastfeeding debacle" break this week, right, with opposing counsel and the deposition in 2011. You have a very different view of Donald Trump and how he treats women. Explain.

BOHNER: I do. First of all, about the debacle last week. I have sat in a deposition and have had the lawyer attacking me and attacking me or trying to trip you up or -- so when that all happened with -- when that broke last week and I saw that it was taken from a deposition, I almost could see the way Mr. Trump might have felt a little bit attacked and maybe gone off a little bit more than he would have necessarily. That said, that -- my experience with him and the way I saw him in the 90s with his family, with Ivanka, with his children and I never -- I'm sure I'm going to get lambasted for this -- but I never saw him or heard him to be a sexist. During the -- when we were writing the book, I was asked to cover the Miss Universe pageant (inaudible) from Marie-Claire because he had just acquired it and was sort of feeding two birds with one meal. And when he was down there and he was speaking to all these young women from all over the world, he -- I think a lot of people would have expected him to be sort of speaking about how hot they were, whatever, and he was so paternal and his attitude toward them was kind of "What do you plan to do with the rest of your life then? Are you going to go into business and...". It was just very polite.

HARLOW: So looking at that -- and I know this is a long way off -- but if we do see a Donald Trump win the Republican primary, could you see a woman as his running mate? Who could you see as his running mate?

BOHNER: That's an interesting question 'cause I can see basically anyone as his running (inaudible).

HARLOW: It could be anyone?

BOHNER: Yes. I mean, he -- his -- one of his best qualities is that he's open to sort of the dream and the vision and a little bit making it up as he goes along. But I -- when I worked at Trump in 1999, I -- more than 50 percent of his senior executives at the Trump Organization were women. He was surrounded by powerful women. So it wouldn't -- it wouldn't be foreign to him if that was the case.

HARLOW: Kate Bohner. Thank you very much and always for coming on. I keep telling Kate "Come to us when you're writing the next book with Donald Trump." I appreciate it.

Also, to this top story that we've been following for you -- the killing of Cecil the Lion by a Minnesota dentist that sparked outrage and debate over big trophy hunts. What is the lure? We're going to speak with an expert on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:00] HARLOW: I'm Poppy Harlow in New York. Thanks so much for being with us. Four-thirty Eastern.

And I want to give you an update on the story we've been following on Cecil the lion's brother, Jericho. I want to be very transparent, that we've been hearing conflicting reports on whether Cecil's brother, Jericho, is dead or alive.

Here's what we know at this hour. An Oxford University researcher who is part of a team tracking Jericho in Zimbabwe tells us here at CNN that Jericho is still moving and is still alive. The field researcher says GPS data that Jericho sends through his collar does not suggest that he was killed.

However, earlier today, the head of the Zimbabwe conservation task force also told us here at CNN that Jericho had been gunned down and was killed by a hunter operating illegally.

So, it is not clear yet whether Jericho is alive or dead. What we do know is that Minnesota dentist, Walter Palmer, is responsible for killing Cecil last month during an illegal hunt, Jericho's brother. Zimbabwe officials are calling for Palmer to be extradited to face charges there.

Dave Salmoni, am planet's large predator expert, joins me now on the phone.

When you read the information from Dr. Palmer about why this kill happened, he basically said, "I was led by my guides. To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted." That will ultimately be weighed by the courts.

But to you, sir, if Cecil was tagged, does there need to be more protection for these animals in the wild?

DAVE SALMONI, LARGE PREDATOR EXPERT (via telephone): Well, it's tough to say, of course, I would love for there to be more and more protection all the time. Obviously, they have a fence and they have a guard patrol. If they had more money, they would have more guards.

But bad people are going to do bad things. I feel like we know this, with you know, every time we get on a plane and how much money goes into protecting ourselves from flying safely, bad people are still doing bad things. The same with conservation, I think that you can set up good systems and those systems are meant to keep these animals safe, but if people are going to do things as nefarious as, you know, what this dentist did, it would be pretty tough to stop them.

HARLOW: Talk to me about how losing this lion, this beautiful creature, affects the entire pride. I mean, not only emotionally for their entire family in the pride, but also genetically.

SALMONI: Yes, unfortunately, in this case, trophy hunting in general, they're going after the biggest and the strongest and the most beautiful. So, what that does is like taking those guys out of the gene pool, it weakens the genes of the entire population. We've noticed over the last 30 years that the average size of male lion has dropped specifically because of trophy hunting.

So, killing Cecil has, you know, done a lot of things, as you say, it's hurt a lot of people around the world, but it's also weakened the family structure that he was protecting and it's weakened the gene pool that he was living amongst.

[16:35:02] HARLOW: Can you talk to me about this trophy hunting and the allure of it?

SALMONI: Yes, you know, I would love to say that I understand it. I don't. You know, absolutely, there is some debate for the type of hunting where, you know, we here in North America, our deer populations are growing out of control because we've, you know, done bad work on the populations of the predator that used to keep them in track. So, we need hunters to control those populations. And those hunters, typically, you know, they enjoy being in the bush with their buddies and they get to go home and eat some of their food.

I'm not saying it's for me, I'm not saying that I support killing something, but I can understand that a little bit. But the idea of going after something for no other reason than bringing it home, stuffing it, and showing it off to your friends, I don't understand what the allure is.

You know, everyone makes fun of, you know, the ego -- the male ego. It's got to be something along the male ego. But as much as it's an ongoing joke for those of us who want to make fun of this dentist, I don't understand any other logical explanation for it. You know, to go and say, hey, look what I shot, that didn't know I was coming, that didn't know I was hiding in the bush, that didn't also have a gun in its hand, I don't understand where that comes from.

HARLOW: Dave Salmoni, large predator expert from Animal Planet, thank you very much.

And for all of you watching, you can get more information on how to take action and get involved in conservation. You can visit animalsarenottrophies.com. Also, Animal Planet, they're running a long lion marathon on August 10th. That is World Lion Day.

Coming up next, we're going to stay on this story. We're going to talk about the Minnesota dentist who killed Cecil and how he stayed out of the public eye, but the U.S. now has the pressure on it to extradite him to Zimbabwe to face charges. What are the chances he'll actually be extradited? We're going to talk to someone who used to work at the State Department, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:39] HARLOW: Well, officials in Zimbabwe want the American dentist who killed Cecil the Lion to face criminal charges in their country. Dr. Walter Palmer says his hunt was legal and that he depended on his guides to comply with the law. But Zimbabwe's environment minister calls Palmer, quote, "a foreign poacher".

The killing has sparked worldwide anger and we will see if Palmer is extradited or not. A petition to the White House calling for his extradition now has over 200,000 signatures.

Let's talk about it with former U.N. and State Department official, David Tarfuri. So, you know, this is not just about legally, whether he can

extradited. I think that answer is pretty clear. Yes, he can be extradited. There's an extradition treaty between the U.S. and Zimbabwe since 2000. There's also a political element to this.

How much weight do you think the United States will put on human rights concerns about Zimbabwe and President Robert Mugabe and the legal system there as to whether they want a U.S. citizen to be tried there?

DAVID TAFURI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER, DENTONS: Well, that will definitely play an important part of the decision of whether the U.S. will extradite him or will try to prosecute him here.

HARLOW: Right.

TAFURI: I think it's clear that he will be prosecuted, either here or in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a very strong argument that he should be extradited. The process is very interesting. He would actually have to have his case reviewed by the State Department, and then by the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice decided it was an extraditable case, that he would then forward the file to a judge, and they would arrest him, and then he would appear before a judge and have a hearing.

He would be able to try and defend himself against being extradited in that hearing. But given the great amount of public concern about this and the pressure on the government, I think the government would agree to extradite him. The judge would probably be forced him to allow him to be extradited. Then, it goes back to the State Department. And the State Department has another decision to make, whether ultimately they let him be extradited. Again, I think they would.

But the question is, will the U.S. prosecute him? That would be up to the Fish and Wildlife Service who is investigating this right now, and to the Department of Justice.

HARLOW: But, David, on what grounds could the U.S., you know, charge him? This isn't something happened in the United States. He didn't break any laws, we don't think, in the United States, in this case.

TAFURI: He didn't break any laws in the United States. However, the U.S. has signed treaties to protect certain species. And this is a protected species. And the U.S. has an obligation to enforce those treaties, and those treaties have the force of law in the U.S.

Therefore, what he did in Zimbabwe can be a crime in the U.S. and can be prosecuted in the U.S.

HARLOW: All right, David Tafuri, formerly with the State Department, if anyone knows how this stuff works, you do. Thanks for being with us.

TAFURI: Thank you.

HARLOW: When we come back, a startling new look at children living in poverty in this country. Who is affected by it the most? We're going to tell you about the breakdown, especially when it comes to race.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAMUN CHOWDHURY, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, LONDON TRADITION: When I came to this country, I didn't have anything. And in 2001, I formed this company, London Tradition. We're selling Britishness, made in London product all around the world.

REPORTER: When Mamun Chowdhury started London Tradition nearly 15 years ago, London's garment district had almost ground to a halt. Low-labor costs in Asia had undercut the sector.

Rather than trying to compete with the mass market, Chowdhury shifted towards quality bespoke coats and jackets, with an emphasis on a product being made in England.

Their best seller has its origins in British military history, made famous by field marshals and fictional bears.

CHOWDHURY: I realize, if I had to stay in business, if I was to survive, I had to do sympathetic different. We changed the coat. We make it attractive for younger version.

REPORTER: Forty-five thousand coats are stitched per year. Prices range from $500 though $2,500. Ninety percent of all of London Tradition's garments are exported.

[16:45:02] Japan's by far London Tradition's biggest market, helping the company to grow 866 percent over the last six years.

In 2014, this success was given the royal stamp of approval, awarded one of the most prestigious business accolades for international trade by Queen Elizabeth II.

CHOWDHURY: I never dreamed I came from a small village. It was a great honor for us, for me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: In today's "American Opportunity" segment, new statistics about poverty in America. While the overall number of children living in poverty in the United States has dropped from 16.3 million in 2010 to 14.7 million in 2013, the differences by race and ethnicity really are startling.

Let's define poverty first. The Pew Research Center defines it as a family of four, including two children, earning less than $24,000 a year. Today, one out of every three Hispanic children living in America are living in poverty. That is 30 percent of the 18 million Hispanic children in the United States.

[16:50:00] Let's talk about it with CNN digital correspondent, Tanzina Vega. She's been poring over the numbers. He wrote about it this week on CNN Money. Let's break them down first. Let's break down the numbers. One out

of every three Hispanic children, two out of five black children living in poverty, compared to one out of 10 white children in this country or one out of ten Asian country in this children.

What's behind the numbers? What is happening?

TANZINA VEGA, CNN DIGITAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in order to understand why children are living in poverty, we need to look at what their parents are dealing with.

There has been a systemic and continued wealth gap in the United States. And when we define wealth, we're talking about your assets, so your retirement savings, the home if you're a homeowner, up against the debt that you have, right? And in this country, the median net worth of a white family is around $130,000 to $140,000. When you compare that to African-Americans at $11,000 and Hispanic families at $13,000, that's a huge gap.

And one research called this a legacy of discrimination that's happened when you look at things like redlining and why certain families were kept out of certain communities, the lower home rates, the higher subprime mortgage -- the rates of subprime mortgages that people of color were sort of saddled with. So, this is something --

HARLOW: And sometimes targeted.

VEGA: That's right. And so, this is something that's been continuous and sustained. And this is hard when you don't have wealth, to be able to pass that on.

HARLOW: When you look at the recovery, you know, it is bifurcated. When you look at who's doing better, there's a reason the income gap is growing in this country. The job market has recovered largely, yes, but the jobs that are coming back are not always the higher- paying jobs with sustainable wages for a family. What needs to change on that front and how is that driving these numbers?

VEGA: So, again, African-Americans have a higher rate of unemployment than Hispanics, whites, and Asians. So, we're looking at that number, first of all. The numbers are really startling. They tend to be large numbers of African-Americans tend to be underemployed, or like you said, working low-wage jobs or unemployed and struggling to get back into the market.

Part of what's happening here is also something known as unconscious bias, that happens a lot, right?

So, there have been studies that show, if you see two resumes with the exact same qualifications, one has a black-sounding name, one has a white-sounding name, the one with the black-sounding name may not even get a call back from that recruiter.

So, these people are getting stopped at the door, right? This is something that's been proven time and time again. You're also looking at the fact that when African-Americans are hired,

they tend to earn less than people from other races, the whites and Asians, for example. Therefore, they're having difficulty saving more money.

So, this is, again, it's just not an isolated incident. These are things that accumulate overtime.

HARLOW: And the fact that the longer the cycle goes on, so many families that I've interviewed and talked to living in poverty said their parents and their grandparents grew up in the same housing project and the cycle needs to be broken. The answer I always get is education, that that is a huge thing to fix.

VEGA: That's a huge thing, yes, exactly.

HARLOW: Thank you very much.

You should also read Tanzina's article on CNN.com about this. Thank you for being with us for "American Opportunity." We appreciate it.

VEGA: Thanks again.

HARLOW: Coming up next, we'll take a fun turn. Talk about a resume, a congressman who is a lumberjack and a former reality star. Chris Moody tells us his story in a way that frankly only he can.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: To his colleagues in Washington, he is Representative Sean Duffy. But back in his home state of Wisconsin, the Republican is also known as a world champion lumberjack. And that's not all. He was also a reality television star.

So, leave it to CNN digital correspondent Chris Moody to put this lumberjack congressman's skills to the test.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRIS MOODY, CNN SENIOR DIGITAL CORRESPONDENT: I don't want to be inside anymore. I want to be a lumberjack! The smell of fresh-cut timber, the crash of mighty trees. We'd sing, sing, sing.

REP. SEAN DUFFY (R), WISCONSIN: Moody? We're not doing that.

(MUSIC)

MOODY: We're in Hayward, Wisconsin, for the lumberjack world champions. You may not know this, but there's a member of Congress who's a lumberjack champion and we want to see if Republican Sean Duffy still has it.

DUFFY: This is my high school stuff. It's been a while. Let's see how daddy does.

My history, my family in America is in lumberjack camps as sawers and choppers. My roots are deep, no pun intended, in lumberjack sport.

My event was the speed climb. That is a race up and down a 90-foot bar pole, and it's kind of like the bull-riding of the rodeo. It's one of the most exciting sports in lumberjack sports. I can also log roll, I can chop and saw, but for me, I have a love for the climb.

MOODY: I heard you have a lumberjack name.

DUFFY: I was Sean Dog back in the year.

MOODY: Now, you're Congressman Sean Dog.

DUFFY: I guess I am, but some legends are meant to die, right?

MOODY: One of those legends is the fact that he was a cast member on MTV's "The Real World" in the '90s.

As an ex-reality TV guy, what do you think of the new reality guy, Donald Trump?

DUFFY: The Donald? He knows how to get attention, right? I'm a Walker guy. I want Wisconsin.

Frankly, I'm one who believes we should talk about ideas, right? This should be an idea and the bomb throwing crowd I don't think works for anybody.

MOODY: Duffy thought I should try my hand at speed climbing.

So, I'm climbing up without a harness?

DUFFY: Of course.

MOODY: I don't understand how that would work.

DUFFY: Let's talk about the worst-case scenario.

MOODY: I fall to my death.

DUFFY: See these pretty little hands, you just get some slivers and raw skin.

MOODY: This is your revenge against the media. That's what this is.

What if I fall right here?

DUFFY: It does -- it hurts a little bit more.

MOODY: You should teach Hillary Clinton to do this so she can get away from me easier.

DUFFY: All right, good, step. Yes, good. That's exactly right. Awesome.

MNOODY: Speed climbing, slowly.

I'd be the fastest sloth.

Ahh!

DUFFY: Paybacks are hell, right?

If you look in Washington, D.C., it's usually journalists who take politicians down. It's kind of fun to come here and have lumberjacks take journalists down.

MOODY: We're just hanging out with Congressman Sean Duffy and then Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson shows up.