Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Democratic Presidential Candidates Duke It Out In Last Debate Before Iowa Caucuses; Three American Contractors Missing In Iraq As Of Friday; Sanders Trailing Clinton By 30 Points Among Self-Identified Democrats, According To New Poll; Iran's Oil Minister To Raise Iran's Output By 1.5 Million Barrels By End Of The Year; Burkina Faso Observes Three Days Of Mourning In Aftermath Of Attack; Report: Widespread Match Fixing in Tennis. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired January 18, 2016 - 00:00   ET

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

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everybody; I'm John Vause. This is CNN NEWSROOM, Los Angeles.

The Democratic candidates for U.S. presidency met expectations for a sharp, and often contentious debate just a few hours ago. In their final meeting before voting begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, the three candidates battled over gun control, healthcare and Wall Street.

Recent poll numbers for Bernie Sanders have surged, putting him within striking distance of frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. One hot-button topic during the debate, U.S. relations with Iran. Three Americans are now in Germany after being freed in a prisoner swap with Iran. After they left Iran, and hours after international nuclear sanctions were lifted against Tehran, the U.S. slapped new sanctions on some Iranian companies for supplying Iran's ballistic missile program.

The debate also came as three American contractors are missing in Iraq. An Iraqi security official says a company reported three of its staff members went missing on Friday. Another official says a group of gunman grabbed the contractors from an apartment in Baghdad. The U.S. State Department says it's working with Iraqi authorities to try and find the men.

Some voters will be casting votes - rather, votes will be cast in just two weeks from now; and with Clinton facing a stronger than ever challenge from Sanders; it was a high energy debate. Former

Maryland Governor, Martin O'Malley, often had to force himself into the discussion without much luck. Here's some highlights:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You've got to break up these huge financial institutions. They have too much economic power and they have too much financial power over our entire economy. I want every kid in this country who has the ability to be able to go to a public college or university tuition free.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party and of our country. Our first line of defense against lone wolf attacks is among Muslim Americans, and it is not only shameful it's dangerous for the kinds of comments you're hearing from the Republican side.

MODERATOR: I'll give you 30 seconds to respond on the issue of lone wolves.

MARTIN O'MALLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Can I get thirty-seconds too?

(Applause)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Well, we have a panel of experts now to join us to talk about this debate. CNN Political Commentator, Van Jones, Democratic; and also our Senior Political Analyst Ron Brownstein, joining me here in Los Angeles; and, CNN Political Director, David Chalian, is with us from Charleston.

David, we'll start with you and I guess, boy, the days of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton shaking hands over those damn emails, that seems like a lifetime ago. What's your take?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, no doubt. This debate happened in a new context, a new point in the race, and clearly Hillary Clinton came in to really try to draw contrast with Bernie Sanders on guns, on health care; and he came in to do it on Wall Street and her connection with wealthy contributors.

Here's what you have going on: for the first time in this race I really think that Bernie Sanders was a little bit more on defense in a way that he hadn't been, a little bit more scrutiny because of how well he's doing in the race. And Hillary Clinton's mission was to make sure that the Bernie Sanders momentum, if there is some there for him right now, and where he's doing well in those two early states, didn't grow; that she still made him the candidate of the far left and not allowed him to sort of broaden that appeal. That was her goal coming in tonight. I think on guns she probably did that; health care, a little more mixed.

But the other key thing that she accomplished was she hugged Barack Obama very tightly. As you know, here in South Carolina, half the Democratic Primary electorate is African American. That has not been a natural constituency thus far for Sanders. In his career he's been working in this campaign to try to broaden his appeal. She made it very clear that she wanted to be the Obama candidate in this race, especially before this crowd.

VAUSE: Absolutely, all very good points you raise there and we'll talk about those now with - we're linked with Van and also Ron Brownstein.

David made the point here that there was a lot of focus in this debate on Bernie Sanders, much more so than I think he's ever had before. How he voted, what he had said in the past. How do you think he (inaudible)? VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: First of all, we saw a new

candidate never seen before, Hillary Rodham Obama.

VAUSE: She wrapped herself in the President.

JONES: She was hugging the President so hard that I think the scandal sheets might start talking about their relationship. It was really, really phenomenal. She knew where she was; she was in South Carolina. A very strong African American turnout. Obviously Obama beat her so badly in 2008. She goes in there, she hugs the President and she's literally running in South Carolina. That is her firewall. She knows she can lose in [00:05:04] Iowa, likely too now, will definitely lose in New Hampshire, I believe; and South Carolina is her firewall, and she knows she needs every black vote, and it showed tonight.

VAUSE: So she'll repeat what her husband did, essentially lose Iowa, lose New Hampshire and pray to god you get the nomination.

RON BROWNSTEIN, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, CNN: The only Democratic since McGovern; only happened twice. Of course, in his case, in Bill Clinton's case in '92, Iowa was not contested. So this would go into uncharted waters. Look, I thought this debate really reflected where we are. I mean, there are two reasons for optimism in the polls for Bernie Sanders, but there are still two big hills he's got to get over and Hillary Clinton was playing to each of those hills. I mean, the optimism is he's doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but they are, essentially, all white states. As you move into the states that are more diverse, it gets much more challenging.

VAUSE: And we're going to talk about Iowa later this hour, but let's talk about the debate because gun control was obviously going to be a big issue between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Let's listen to part of the exchange between these two candidates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton knows what she says is very disingenuous. I have a D-voting record from the NRA. I have supported, from Day One, an instant background check to make certain that people who should not have guns do not have guns, and that includes people with criminal backgrounds, people mentally unstable. I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loopholes.

CLINTON: He voted for what we call the "Charleston Loophole". He voted for immunity from gun makers and sellers, which the NRA said was the most important piece of gun legislation in 20 years. He voted to let guns go onto Amtrak, guns go in to National Parks. He voted against research to figure out how we can save lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: That exchange started out with the question about changing his position on legal immunity for gun makers. Van, do you think Sanders handled that question well? He didn't really answer it though, did he? JONES: Well I think he's in a tough position here. I think if he were to be honest, he believes there's a formula here which is you're tough economic populous, but frankly you're soft on guns and that's a way to get the white working class. He's afraid to say that. He has not said that; but I think it's not an accident where he is, but it puts him out of step with the new Democratic Party, and it hurt him tonight. It hurt him.

VAUSE: And, Ron, this is one area where Sanders is to the right of Clinton?

BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely, and, you know, coming from Vermont and having Van kind of accurately analyze his perspective, but, look, there is something in here that kind of goes deeper than this.

Even though Bernie Sanders is moving up in Iowa and New Hampshire, even in the polls that have him ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, he is trailing her by 15 points among self-identified Democrats. In the national NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that came out this week, he is trailing her by 30 points among self-identified Democrats. He is being fueled largely by enormous strength among Independents; and gun control, in this new Democratic Party, is an issue that largely unites Democrats, and it's the opportunity for her to put him outside of the mainstream from those in the party.

VAUSE: Okay, now gun issues that was a weakness of Bernie Sanders. Wall Street is a weakness clearly for Clinton. Sanders went after Clinton on this; in particular, raising the $600,000.00 in speaking fees she got from Goldman Sachs, and that no one has really been charged since the financial crisis in 2008. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: The first difference is I don't take money from big banks. I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

(APPLAUSE)

What I would do -- what I would do is understand that when you have three out of the four largest banks today, bigger than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail; when you have the six largest financial institutions having assets of 60% of the GDP of America, it is very clear to me what you have to do. You have to bring back a 21st Century Glass Eagle legislation and break up the huge financial institutions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: And, again, Hillary's response - Hillary Clinton's response to this was to say I support everything that President Obama did. Yet again, another situation where she's wrapping herself in the legacy of the President.

BROWNSTEIN: Clearly, that was her first line of defense and the Wall Street and the health care, it seems to me, the conversation raises the same issue. People say Bernie Sanders is appealing to the heart, Hillary Clinton to the head. There's a lot to that in the Democratic party. The challenge I think Bernie Sanders faces is to explain how you would move forward any of these ideas in the likely political climate you're going to have in 2017. Democrats could not go farther than Dodd-Frank with 59 senators in 2009. With 51 or 52 in a Republican House, it's not clear where this conversation goes in practice.

JONES: Well, she is trying to run as the most pragmatic but I think he's trying to run as the most principled. I've got to say, I was actually very proud to see somebody standing up the way he was on this Wall Street question. He raised some things I hadn't heard him raise so much before: about the personnel [00:10:02] question; who do you put in the White House around you and he said, listen, you've got a lot of big bankers, Goldman Sachs in particular, basically having their way, at a personnel level inside the White House. I'm not going to put any of those guys in my White House. I thought that was actually a strong moment for him and he definitely, I think, won that round of the debate.

BROWNSTEIN: But I guess I found myself wondering, Van, at this kind of moment where we are in this divided country, what does it mean to be running on splitting up the banks or having a universal healthcare -- single payer health care system? It's not something that you can plausibly see any path toward legislation. So what exactly are you offering --

JONES: But look --

BROWNSTEIN: -- in those promises?

JONES: Can you make the Mexicans build a wall?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Yes.

JONES: You're in a primary where you have a lot of people on the left and the right who want to hear big, bold solutions.

BROWNSTEIN: Right, that's true.

JONES: (Cross talk) says, you know what, I get how much pain you're in, how much change you want; whether or not you can get it done.

BROWNSTEIN: And there - look, I think you've got, in both parties, a lot of people who simply do not want to be constrained by the reality of where we are as a country today, which is where neither side has the ability to simply impose its agenda on the other.

VAUSE: I want to get to David Chalian, who is in Charleston, and one of the issues that came also, David, was the issue of health care. I thought it was interesting that these candidates actually spent ten minutes debating something which has zero chance of ever getting through Congress which, is Medicare for all, which is what we're just saying here, about these sort of big concepts which have no possibility of ever happening. CHALIAN: Right, and what's so interesting is that Hillary Clinton, now that Bernie Sanders put out his health care plan just a couple hours before the debate started, and how he's going to pay for it, she backed off sort of the cost if it and got to that pragmatic reality. She also warned against putting the country through another divisive debate.

That may have an appeal to a larger swath, maybe a general election audience, but again, if you're going for the hearts of these Democratic voters, Medicare for all, single payer system is something that that left wing of the Democratic party has been pursuing for years. I mean, that is -- Sanders has been pushing that his entire career basically. So this is why I think that when that issue came up, I think it was probably smarter for Hillary Clinton to sort of make that pragmatic argument there rather than to try to sell the idea that it's a bad idea because the Democratic electorate, the liberal base, won't buy it.

The other part here that's critical to mention I think, is that Bernie Sanders probably didn't lose a single supporter tonight. He was able to have some good moments of what brought him here. I just think that he didn't have a moment to grow beyond, probably, what he's already amassed.

VAUSE: Okay, David, because essentially Hillary is saying I'm practical; I'm the doer. He's the dreamer.

JONES: Right, but I think she did something worse than that tonight, which I don't think she should continue. She basically began to make Republican sounding arguments saying what you're doing is raising taxes. That's really not quite fair because if you did Bernie's plan -- you couldn't do it, but if you did it, you would lower your health care bill, your insurance bill -

VAUSE: Right.

JONES: -- and your taxes go up a little bit. But the math of it is a huge savings to middle class people. For her to get there and screw that argument up, it almost raise Republican, almost Cruz-type arguments, I thought was really unfair to Bernie Sanders and not good for her.

BROWNSTEIN: It is worth noting that the U.S. now spends $3 trillion a year on health care. The Sanders plan is costed on assuming he could bring it down to 1.4 trillion, cut it about in half. So if you cannot reduce health care spending as much as he's expecting, you would have to raise more in revenue even than he put out today.

VAYSE: Okay. It was about an hour and ten minutes before we got to national security and Iran, very late in the game. That would never have happened at a Republican debate. So, essentially when Iran came up, it was very different than last week with the GOP. Everyone seemed pretty happy; listen to this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SANDERS: I think what we have got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran, understanding that Iran's behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with.

CLINTON: I was responsible for getting those sanctions imposed, which put the pressure in Iran that brought them to the negotiating table, which resulted in this agreement. So they have been, so far, following their requirements under the agreement, but I think we still have to carefully watch them. We've had one good day over 36 years, and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly toward any kind of normalization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: So, Ron, a good answer from Hillary Clinton? Again though, it seems her (inaudible) side is coming out.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, there are no -- there are policy differences that matter but no policy differences that are as wide as the gulf in the confidence and the kind of sense of preparation in talking about positions. That is the real difference. Whenever they turn to foreign policy, she's -

VAUSE: She just nails it.

BROWNSTEIN: -- significantly more presidential than anybody on the stage.

JONES: And probably more presidential than anybody else in the world. I mean, on foreign policy, there's probably nobody [00:15:03] better prepared than the former secretary of state to deal with it.

VAUSE: Okay, you guys are going to stick around because we're going to talk a little bit more about the debate and what it means for the Iowa caucuses in about two weeks from now; so we appreciate you staying with us. David Chalian, in Charleston, thank you for being with us.

We have more now on some major developments in Iran. Five Americans have been held prisoner in Iran are now free and Iran is savoring the end of a longstanding international sanction regime but, some Iranian companies are facing new U.S. sanctions; so let's get more.

"L.A. Times" Correspondent, Ramin Mostaghim is in Tehran right now. So, Ramin, how are all these developments being reported there in Iran and what about the reaction from most Iranians?

RAMIN MOSTAGHIM, REPORTER, "L.A. TIMES": For the general population down there, one of the most polluted day it's going to be, people try just to lead their subsistence life and to remain on the surface and try to make two ends meet. For the common people, I did some (inaudible) swapping today before coming to CNN studio. I found out, out of four, three are just very

pessimistic and say okay, there's nothing to be for us there's no share for the common people. I just talk to the retired teachers. they said, okay, we don't expect anything, because when Iran had its bonanza and heyday in oil revenue in Ahmadinejad time, $140 billion revenue, we got nothing, almost nothing; let alone now we have $30 billion, maybe, unfrozen any day, and nothing happens for us. I mean, the lion's share goes to others, those who have, but we don't have and we don't get anything and we don't expect anything.

only one person was optimistic and said -- yes, go ahead.

VAUSE: Sorry to interrupt, but you're basically saying that the vast majority of people in Iran, at least the ones you've been dealing with, the ones you've been speaking to, basically have no expectations of an economic boom, that their lives are going to get better?

MOSTAGHIM: Yes, that's true. That's true, because I mean, the common people don't say I call it the micro economy or macro economy or analysis of the elites. They just look at their pockets and their daily routine life and they see is there any daily bread for us out of this. So the common people don't expect too much of it, and they don't have any reason to say.

If I can say in a nutshell, the arguments and the mindset of the people is that, okay, we didn't get anything of the bonanza in eight years ago or ten years ago. We don't expect to get anything because the mismanagement is there.

VAUSE: Right.

MOSTAGHIM: Mismanagement is prevailing; no matter sanction is lifted or not. I called into the officials mismanagements are important, and mismanagement cannot be corrected overnight.

VAUSE: Okay, Ramin, we'll leave it there, but we appreciate your insights there, live from Tehran, telling us exactly what is happening with many people. You'd think it would be a different reaction. You'd think there'd be some excitement, but I

guess not. Thank you, Ramin.

Well, the lifting of sanctions against Iran has expected to be a boon for Tehran's economy, maybe, but it is making global oil markets tank. When we come back, we'll take a look at that. Also, Burkina Faso is still reeling from a bloody siege killed and wounded dozens of people. New details on the victims of Friday's deadly attack; that's also ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:21:02] VAUSE: (HEADLINES) Iran not wasting any time getting back into the global oil business. The country's oil minister plans to raise Iran's output by 1.5 million barrels by the end of this year, and the suggestion is already driving oil prices down. A few hours ago Brent Crude traded below $28 a barrel, just for a moment. That is its lowest price in 12 years.

Well, for more on the markets and falling oil prices, Andrew Stevens with us, live this hour from Hong Kong. So, Andrew, the markets about to hit by another half a million barrels a day from Iran, maybe up to 2 million barrels a day eventually. How low could that drive oil prices?

ANDREW STEVENS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well the wisdom in the markets at the moment, John, that oil is at pretty much a one-way bet and it's all down. If you think that oil was down just six-percent in one day on Friday, a massive fall. The falls did continue initially here in Asia, oil was down another four-percent before it did rally, and it's up a little bit at the moment; but, still, the general direction is very clearly down. You talk to Goldman Sachs; they've put out a report which says that oil could hit $20 a barrel. Others, Standard Chartered, another big bank, says it could hit $10 barrel.

I've just been speaking to oil analysts in Asia this morning; they're not quite as bearish, but they're still saying $25 could see the low point in this. But, still very much heading down. There's nothing really to support it going up, given the fact that, as you say, Iran is increasing oil while demand remains

flat or falling for oil all around the globe.

VAUSE: And with that in mind, just who will be out there actually buying oil from Iran? It's pretty unclear right now who the potential buyers might be.

STEVENS: Well it's key to remember that Iran has been producing oil. This is not going from zero to production. It has been producing not only for us own domestic consumption, well over 1 million barrels a day, but it's been allowed to produce about 1 million barrels for export as well. This is because it's been slowly meeting terms to do with its nuclear policy in recent months, which has met some partial lifting of some of the sanctions. So countries like China have been the big buyer. China is buying about 600,000 barrels a day. India is another big buyer. Japan and also South Korea, there's actually only six countries in all that are allowed to buy. China is easily the biggest buyer, so they can ramp up their buying from Iran if they need to. So there is still a market for Iranian oil.

VAUSE: They can certainly ramp up their purchasing if they have the demand, but with their economy slowing you wonder how much demand there will be for that. Andrew, thank you; Andrew Stevens live in Hong Kong.

Burkina Faso is observing three days of mourning in the aftermath of Friday's deadly attack in the capitol. The siege appeared to be well planned, with some of the attackers going to the hotel during the day, mingling with some of the guest. David McKenzie has late details.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The terrible toll of the attack by al-Qaeda affiliates in Burkina Faso is becoming clearer. At least 28 people were killed, say authorities, including six Canadians, French, Ukrainians, Swiss, and one American, a missionary, Mike Rittering, who was in the country to help women and orphaned children. Those who survived the attack, many of them injured, are still reeling.

Fiery scenes, both shocking and horribly familiar. Authorities say at least four heavily armed attackers, two of them women, [00:25:03] storming a cafe popular with westerners in Burkina Faso's capital late Friday.

YANNICK SIRWADOGO, SURVIVOR, via translator: It's horrible because everyone was panicked and was laying down on the floor. There was blood everywhere. They were shooting at people at point-blank. The sound of the detonation was so loud. We could hear them talking and they were walking around and kept shooting at people that seemed alive.

MCKENZIE: Officials in Burkina Faso say it was a complex attack. Some terrorists posing as tourists during the day before striking at night, moving from the cafe to a popular hotel across the street.

Burkina Bay Forces, joined by French Special Forces flown in from Mali, and American Intelligence support. Hours into the bloody siege, the security operation moved in and the shooting soon stopped; but the attack left dozens dead from at least 18 countries, more than 120 hostages were freed, and many still injured.

ROGER INETIERNA, WOUNDED WITNESS, via translator: They came in, we were all lying on the ground; and they shot at everybody. Maybe I was lucky it was just my arm.

MCKENZIE: The attacks allegedly claimed by al-Qaeda and the Islamic Maghreb and executed Al-Murabitoon, by this man, the notorious one- eyed sheik, Moktar Melmokhtar, the same groups behind the deadly Radisson Hotel attacks in Mali late last year.

The President of Burkina Faso has thanked Americans and French for assisting in the security operation and the country is going through three days of national mourning but questions being asked about al- Qaeda and the Islamic Maghreb, and Al-Murabitoon, the two groups that claim responsibility. They are also behind the recent attack in Mali, on a hotel using similar tactics, sparking fear that al-Qaeda in the region could be on the rise.

David McKenzie, CNN, Johannesburg, South Africa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: We'll take a short break here. When we come back, the Democrats have just finished their latest debate; happened just a few hours ago. So we'll take a look at what that all means as these candidates head to the Iowa caucuses. Also ahead, the pro tennis season is starting under a shadow of scandal. The details on reports of alleged match fixing, even in the sport's top tournament.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:30:46] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody. I'm John Vause; you're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. We'll return now to the Democratic Presidential Debate.

One of the issues Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sharply disagreed on was health care and how it should be paid for. Secretary Clinton raised the hot-button issue, raising taxes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPO)

CLINTON: I'm the only candidate standing here tonight who has said I will not raise taxes on the middle class.

SANDERS: You know, I'm disappointed that Secretary Clinton's campaign has made this criticism. It's a Republican criticism. Secretary Clinton does know a lot about health care, and she understands, I believe, that a Medicare for all, single payer program will substantially lower the cost of health care for middle class families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Well, still with us to talk more about this is, CNN Political Commentator Van Jones and our Senior Political Analyst, Ron Brownstein, but we also have Eric Bradner in Charleston, South Carolina. He's our Political Reporter. So, Eric, this has been a really bad nightmarish start to 2016 for Hillary Clinton. It seems a lot like 2008, and in some ways the same issues here too: underestimating her opponents and then overreacting to her opponents. Did she manage to do anything about that tonight during this debate?

Well, probably no. I mean, the dynamic that's developing in this race is Bernie Sanders as the candidate of purity, whose anger sort of matches a moment of dissatisfaction in the electorate, compared to Hillary Clinton who is this sort of pragmatic, realistic candidate who is being cast as someone who represents the political establishment by Sanders.

So Clinton came out swinging. She hit Sanders immediately on guns. She took some hard swings on health care, but it didn't really do anything to throw Sanders off. He had a great attack on Goldman Sachs, talking about the paid speeches Hillary Clinton had given there. So, it wasn't a bad night for Clinton; she's good in debates. She had some really nice moments, but Bernie Sanders has a lot of momentum now, and nothing that happened tonight is likely to slow that down.

VAUSE: Eric, thank you. And, Van certain, if you look at some of the reaction on social media, a lot of people saying Bernie Sanders won this debate. There was one moment, though, Ron, I think we'll play the sound bite in a moment, I thought it was interesting, was Bernie Sanders sounding a lot like Donald Trump. Let's listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: When this campaign began she was 50 points ahead of me. We were all of three percentage points. Guess what? In Iowa, New Hampshire, the race is very, very close. Maybe we're ahead in New Hampshire. On terms of polling, guess what? We are running ahead of Secretary Clinton, in terms of taking on my good friend, Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: My good friend, Donald Trump, where did that come from? I mean, we talked about these poll numbers. Nationally, what do they mean?

BROWNSTEIN: Look, there's a reason for optimism for Bernie Sanders. He started off as what I have call a wine-track candidate. He was basically dependent solely on white-collar, socially liberal, upper- middle class whites. He has clearly expanded now beyond that beachhead in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is showing reach into the white working class, but what he is not showing is that he can across this big hill, which is Hillary Clinton's strong position among African Americans, Hispanics and other minority voters. In that national NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, she's up 69-27 among minority voters and also up by more than 30 points among self-identified democrats. Again, he tends to attract people who are more driven by their ideology than their partisanship. The challenge he will face eventually is, if you can't go beyond that, yes, you can make some noise. You can win Iowa and New Hampshire and scramble the deck, but ultimately it's very hard to be the nominee of a party if do you can't win most of the voters in that party, which is what John McCain learned in 2000 when he had a similar profile on the other side.

VAUSE: And one of the other reasons why Hillary Clinton is so popular among African Americans, and she showed that again tonight, is on the issue on inequality within the justice system, especially for African Americans. This is some of what she had to say about that; let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[00:35:03] CLINTON: There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. One out of three African American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic. I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: And this is something where Bernie Sanders really can't get close to Hillary Clinton on, or the Clintons, plural.

JONES: Well, you know, it's so interesting because Bill Clinton actually passed some of these laws that resulted in so many people winding up in prison and she was very smart early onto get away from that record and to really respond to this rising cry, not just from the African American community but from all people who are concerned saying, look, we've gone too far. Bernie Sanders tried to catch up and say I wanted the Department of Justice to investigate every police killing, but Hillary Clinton is doing something, I think that

is very smart.

Most people don't understand in order for a democrat to win in a general election, the African American community has to support the democrats, not at 50-percent, not at 60, not at 70, not 90, but at 92- 94-percent. That is how strong the black support for the Democrats has to be or they lose. So Hillary Clinton when she has a lock on the black vote, that's also very important for a general election, and most people know that.

BROWNSTEIN: Can I just say one point?

VAUST: Yes.

BROWNSTEIN: Van has done some remarkable work on building coalitions with Republicans around this issue, but notwithstanding that, I want to hang a check mark and have us come back and have this conversation in September and October because there was a moment in the debate last week that we talked about, in the Republican Debate, where Donald Trump made a point of defending the police. As the Republicans go down the line of argument they are pursuing on a lot of issues, they are not in a position to really expand their performance among minorities. They're looking to double down and expand their performance among whites. You can see many of these positions on criminal justice becoming a big point of conflict between the parties in a way we haven't seen so far, which will be bad.

VAUSE: Very quickly back to Eric in Charleston. We haven't talked a lot about Governor O'Malley here so I'll let you sum this up for us, Eric. Was this his last debate? Are we likely to say good-bye to the Governor after this? He's sort of running out of support, running out of money. He didn't really have much to say?

BRADNER: Right; he had to accept public financing for his campaign. That's a signal that he doesn't have much money. He hasn't done anything to move the numbers. He didn't have a bad night, but there's nothing here happening that indicates he's going to get out of the low single digits. So, I'm not going to say it's his last debate, but it looks like it's going to be very hard for him to continue on past Iowa and New Hampshire.

VAUSE: Okay, Eric; thank you. Eric Bradner there in Charleston, South Carolina. Ron Brownstein here with me in Los Angeles; Van Jones, as well. You know, it was an interesting debate. For O'Malley it's trending on Twitter #pooro'malley. It wasn't a great night.

JONES: One thing I've got to say -

VAUSE: Sure.

JONES: -- why does the DNC do these debates on a Sunday, on a three- day weekend.

VAUSE: Martin Luther King -

JONES: I wish that -- I thought it was a great debate. Obviously I wish that O'Malley got more space, but come on. The Democrats should debate in the light of day, when people can watch these things.

VAUSE: Yes, good point, and a lot of people are actually saying that as well.

BROWNSTEIN: Well it wasn't designed to have a lot of people to watch it; I don't think.

VAUSE: Okay; thank you both. Appreciate it. Short break and when we come back, grand slam tennis is back, but it's starting under a cloud. We'll have the biggest story lines from the Australian Open when we come back because we have these reports accusing pro tennis players of turning a blind eye to allegations of match fixing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:40:30] VAUSE: Well, welcome back. Tennis is officially under way. The Australian Open started in Melbourne a short time ago. The top men's player, Novak Djokovic is starting his bid for a calendar grand slam, meaning a clean sweep of the four major tournaments in a given year. The top women's player, Serena Williams, has already won her first round. Also of note this year, Australian tennis legend, Lleyton Hewitt will hang up his racket, finishing his career in his 20th appearance at the Aussie Open.

But, the season is opening under a cloud of scandal. The four governing bodies of tennis are strongly denouncing explosive reports which claim there is widespread match fixing in tennis, and it's being ignored. BBC and Buzzfeed News say they acquired secret files implicating 16 players ranked in the world's top 50 over the last decade, and that includes Grand Slam winners. They do not name names. The ATP, WTA, Grand Slam Board and the ITF all deny allegations of a cover-up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS KERMODE, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, ATP: The Tennis Integrity Unit and the tennis authorities absolutely reject any suggestion that evidence of match fixing has been suppressed for any reason or isn't being thoroughly investigated. And while the BBC and

Buzz Feed reports mainly refer to events from about ten years ago, we will investigate any new information, and we always do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: The players are suspected of throwing matches for money, even at the hallowed grounds of Wimbledon.

Far from the view of the tennis world, we're joined now on the phone by Pat Cash, a former Wimbledon champion, two time Australian Open finalist. Pat, it's an honor to speak with you, so thank you for being with us. What's your reaction to these claims which are coming from the BBC and Buzz Feed and apparently coming out of the Tennis Integrity Unit?

PAT CASH, FORMER TENNIS CHAMPION, WIMBLEDON: Well it's along the same lines as what the ATP say. They are red hot under this match fixing stuff, and yes, there has been stuff that has happened. There was certainly massive rumors around about ten years ago. They have set up a unit to deal with this issue and, look, they understand that tennis is a prime candidate, actually the perfect sport to do match fixing in. There's no team, other team members you have to deal with. No other teams you have to talk to. There's just a one on one, unless it's doubles of course, but pretty much head to head stuff that you can match fix.

But the allegations, this is just all hearsay. There's just some mentioned named players. These players, these alleged players that have been sort of flagged up, that's because they are monitoring. They're monitoring what's going on and if they see some activity then they go and investigate them. It's not to say that they've stopped the investigation and just pushed it under the table or under the mat. They realize there is no grounds on this, though there are instances, no doubt, in lower tournaments, that people have been match fixing and there will be some in the future; people will try certain things.

But I'm absolutely convinced that here, at the Australian open, in front of Rod Laver Arena, I've been inside the players' area, and everybody is shaking their heads going this is just an old, old sort of news, and there's absolutely very little proof to any of this report that news report.

VAUSE: Pat, according to the BBC and Buzzfeed, at least eight of the 16 players under suspicion are playing at this year's Australian Open. Does that cast a shadow over what's happening in Melbourne right now?

CASH: Well, it's different things under suspicion. If there are - if there's activity -- they know from the betting sites if there's activity going on, they look at the players, the way things, money being put on them, they may be being looked at, but it doesn't mean that these players are match fixing and they're being allowed to play. Look, it's one thing having sort of --

it's basically a rumor or something for the players to look at that may be, you know, let's have a look at these guys and see what's going on; but they certainly are red hot on this.

The players are warned consistently about this. There's a lot of talk about it and they know that you can't get away with this sort of stuff. So I'd just hate to think that there are players [00:45:04] here at the Australian Open that are doing match fixing. It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever that these players are match fixing here; and if they're under some sort of suspicious and investigation, then that's a good thing. That's a good thing and we'll see if anything comes out of it in the future.

VAUSE: One of the things that really shocked me in this report is they're saying that even at three matches at Wimbledon may have been impacted by match fixing at some point. You know, how significant, really, is that? Wimbledon of all places, it just seems to be quite shocking, if it's true.

CASH: Well, you know what; it's sport. It's the way it goes. There's lots of gambling sites and companies involved in tennis. In tennis, you can bet on just about everything. You can bet on how many double-faults are coming; how many Aces are happening; and, as I said, there's always going to be a rotten apple somewhere along the line. I'm sure that there has been. There's been lots of rumors in and around the locker room of certain players that have - you know, nothing has happened to them, so whether that's -- obviously they're being cleared, but I think there probably has been at some stage, some things, but, you know, --

But the investigations, these reports are quite old. they're almost a decade old, some of these investigations, and that's -- that was just the start of the investigation, and the units have been set up to look into these sort of things, and there probably has been at Wimbledon, there's been some things. All sorts of things in all sorts of tournaments. But, the real match fixing and the issue here is that tennis players can't make a living when they're ranked low, low. Until they're about 75 in the world, tennis players can't make any money or can't put any money away.

So desperate people do desperate things, and they have to make a living and get to the next tournament and there's been some players at the lower levels have done it. Some of them are being caught; but to think that here, at the Australian Open, at the high level of players here, I think that's pushing it a bit too far, in my opinion.

VAUSE: Pat, we appreciate your opinion, and we appreciate your being with us; thank you so much. Pat Cash, former Wimbledon winner there, Wimbledon Champion; and also host of CNN's "OPEN COURT." Thank you, Pat.

Well, thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause. "WORLD SPORT" with Kate Riley is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WORLD SPORTS)