Return to Transcripts main page


Obama Administration Certain Russia Behind Hacking; Trump Quotes Assange on Hacking Allegations; Ceasefire Inside Syria Reached Without U.S.; Officials: Gunman Identified Still On The Run; Israeli Soldier Found Guilty Of Manslaughter; Trump's Unusual Approach to the Presidency; Major Fight Looming Over Obamacare; U.S. Military Families Practice South Korea Evacuation; Faraday Future Unveils New Car. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 4, 2017 - 15:00   ET




[15:00:22] HALA GORANI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Hala Gorani. Thanks for being with us on this Wednesday. This is THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

We are witnessing an unprecedented face-off in American politics. The Obama administration says it is 100 percent certain that Russia was behind

hacking related to the American election. However, the incoming president- elect says he's not so sure.

Donald Trump, instead, seems to be siding with the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange. Assange denies Russia was his source for leaked e-mails

and suggested the Obama administration might actually have ulterior motives.


JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS FOUNDER: We can say -- we have said repeatedly, over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and

it is not state party. Why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They're trying to delegitimize Trump administration as it goes

into the White House.


GORANI: Well, in reaction to that interview on Fox News, Trump tweeted, "Julian Assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta. Why was DNC

so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info. So why would Trump side with Russia and not his own intelligence agencies?

Let's bring in CNN chief U.S. security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, he's live in Washington. What's been the reaction to all this?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, the reaction from the intelligence agencies, at least in private, is alarm, frankly.

These are agencies that take their work very seriously and apolitically, right, trying to provide the best intelligence on the greatest threats to

national security here.

And they serve Democratic and Republican presidents and they're being thrown under the bus here. Right? This is even before the praise for

Assange. Donald Trump questioning the intelligence from the beginning.

And to be clear here, Hala, this is not a Democrat and Republican issue because Donald Trump is largely alone here. Republican leader of the

House, Paul Ryan, Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

Many Republicans really across the board, one, say Russia is behind the hacking and, two, they're saying they want to be even tougher on Russia

than President Obama has been. Not weaker, they want to be tougher, so Donald Trump digging a very solitary hole here and it's just difficult to

fathom why.

GORANI: All right. Jim Sciutto, thanks very much.

The State Department had said there is no question that Russia hacked in order to influence November's election. Let's get to Mark Toner, the

deputy spokesperson for the U.S. State Department.

So what do you think of Donald Trump saying essentially using Julian Assange as a source and then questioning the credibility of U.S.

intelligence agencies?

MARK TONER, DEPUTY SPOKESMAN, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Well, Hala, I'm going to leave speculation about President-elect Trump's motives, why he's

tweeted what he's tweeted, really to the president-elect. Our assessment remains what it was yesterday, what it was the day before, what it was way

back in October when we initially -- the president, or rather, our intelligence community issued that first statement.

And that's what's important here, and I think your correspondent just hit on it, is this isn't a partisan issue. There's agreement by our

intelligence community, all the agencies that go about creating that assessment that Russia attempted at very high levels to manipulate, sew

doubt about and really disrupt our electoral process.

[15:05:13]That's what's really concerning about that and why the president took the action he did.

GORANI: But Mark Toner, you know those who are doubting the credibility of the intelligence agency. I'm not saying high level Republicans. I mean,

we'll hear from Lindsey Graham, what he said about it a little bit later.

But also those who supported Donald Trump, those who say, look, in 2003, there was intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that

turned out to be untrue. Why should we blindly trust intelligence agencies on this if we don't see more proof? How do you respond to that?

TONER: Well, again, this wasn't something they reached lightly. This wasn't a determination that they reached lightly. I don't want to draw

clear distinctions between what happened in 2003 and today. But obviously the intelligence community has come a long way since then and also this is

a different matter altogether.

This is about detecting and tracking and determining who the -- was behind a cyber-intrusion. You know, frankly, very few countries do it better than

the United States does in terms of tracking what these kind of cyber intrusions look like and being able to trace them back to the actors behind



TONER: Go ahead.

GORANI: Will it be possible, then, to see -- I mean, is it -- will it be a situation because there are some doubts expressed, I'm not saying this is

an overwhelming opinion, but that perhaps some of the intelligence agencies will publish some of the methodology they used to reach this conclusion?

Because you heard Julian Assange there on Fox News on Sean Hannity's show. He said I can tell you, Wikileaks, after all, released these e-mails, it

wasn't the Russian government. It was not a state actor.

I mean, which means potentially it could have been a Russian individual or individual or group of individuals from another country. Just not a state

actor. So will it be a situation where, perhaps, intelligence agencies will be compelled to publish some of their findings more clearly?

TONER: Well, look, I mean, you know, I'm going to take anything Julian Assange says with a huge grain of salt. You know, I leave it for your

viewers to make their own decisions, but this is an individual who has shown absolutely total disregard for confidential materials.

He has traded in confidential materials and shared them publicly. You know, that's a whole other story. What's important here, though, is that

it is the assessment, the shared assessment of the intelligence community.

And to speak to your previous question, look, this is something that they did not reach, a conclusion they did not reach lightly because it actually

points the finger of blame to another government.

And certainly, you know, those are not the kind of decisions that any government, much less the U.S. government, takes lightly and the president

said --

GORANI: But it --

TONER: Go ahead.

GORANI: No, I was going to say if that's the belief of the current administration and also the belief of high-ranking Republicans on Capitol

Hill, the idea somehow that Russia hacked e-mail servers of the Democratic Party, of other, you know, sort of very important servers that revealed

private communications of high-level Democrats, that should be a huge cause for concern then.

TONER: Well, exactly -- you know, the president has acted -- he made the decision that he took last Friday, certainly the State Department took --

had played a part in that decision or those actions that carried out.

We expelled PNG, as they say, 35 diplomats, who were here carrying out spy activities, spying, and we also took action against a couple properties

that the Russians owned here.

And let's speak to the other side of this coin which is something with respect to the State Department, which is the continued, and in fact,

increased harassment of our diplomats in Moscow and all around Russia over the past 12 months and even before then.


TONER: This is a pattern that we've seen over some time now. The cyber activity, the cyber intrusions, are only the latest element of that, and

indeed, probably the most serious element of that.

GORANI: And Russia, of course, continues to deny that it has anything to do with hacking or trying to meddle in the U.S. election. On a closing

note, I want to ask you, you and I, Mark Toner, have spoken for many, many years about what's going on in Syria, what the U.S. has tried to do to stop

the violence there.

All the talks that have started that ended up, the ceasefire supported by the U.S. that ended up failing. Now as you, you know, come to an end here

in your role and look at Russia really essentially calling all the shots in Syria.

What are your thoughts after all these years of the State Department and John Kerry trying to, you know, make a difference and in the end Russia

seems to be one holding all the cards?

TONER: Well, a couple thoughts. John Kerry, himself, has said that he'd rather be caught trying and that he believed that he had to pursue a

diplomatic solution in Syria no matter what.

And that meant sitting around with the key stakeholders and part of that was acknowledging that Russia, like it or not, Russia and Iran are key


[15:10:10]They've made themselves key stakeholders in what happens in Syria. But secondly, you know, we've seen this much ballyhooed ceasefire

run into some trouble immediately. Again, violations on the part of the regime.

So, again, it calls into question where we've been time and time again, which is the regime's willingness and Russia's, in fact, influence over the

regime, to really bring about a sustained ceasefire.

GORANI: So you're saying it might collapse, it sounds like you're saying this isn't a very solid deal.

TONER: What I'm saying is this is not easy. It wasn't easy before when we played a role in it. It's not easy now with the Turks and Russians leading

the effort. We, of course, want to see any ceasefire succeed. We would love to see any end to the violence in Syria.

But it's hard, it's hard for a lot of reasons but mostly because the regime keeps on violating it, keeps on going after the moderate opposition. If we

can get to a place where we can get political negotiations back up in Geneva, look, we'll support that because we want to see ultimately an end

to the violence there.

GORANI: All right. We know some talks are happening in Kazakhstan. We hope to be able to speak with you in the next few weeks, but if not, good

luck for the future.

TONER: Thanks, Hala. Appreciate it.

GORANI: Thanks very much. Mark Toner at the State Department.

Now, to Turkey now, the gunman who killed 39 people in a shooting rampage at an Istanbul nightclub is still on the run, but Turkey's foreign minister

says the suspect has been identified. Right now, his name and nationality are a mystery to everyone but Turkish authorities.

Police also detained 20 suspected members of ISIS in connection with the New Year's Day attack. Sara Sidner reports the once glitzy Reina Nightclub

is now scarred by bullet holes and stained with blood. She went inside and sent us this report.


SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In order to get to the Reina Nightclub, you, of course, have to take a boat. We're now entering where this

massacre happened. It's truly in a beautiful spot. From the beautiful terrace, you really can't see any damage but the moment you walk in, you

can see the very first bullet hole that we've been able to see from this attack.

That is definitely a high-caliber weapon. Huge hole. That's blood from a victim on the wall right beneath the large bullet hole. To get some idea

just how frightened people were, look what they left behind, shoes, coats. There are purses. There are glasses and scarves. We also see a hat and

that is stained with blood.

This is the bar in the dance club area where people would eat and drink, dance and enjoy themselves. This area is where people started trying to

hide behind anything they could but in the end, this place where we're standing was strewn with bodies.

From what we can see, this is the area that seems to have the most bullet holes and the holes are huge. But surprisingly, there aren't that many

considering all the shooting that happened that night. And that is because the terrorist was targeting people one by one by one.

This is the view from the Reina across the Bosphorus and you're looking at the (inaudible) side with its rolling hills and beautiful mosques. This is

why people came here. It's incredibly picturesque.

But now so many people will remember that a slaughter happened here and the owner is really struggling with figuring out whether or not he will open up

this club again. He says he'll leave it up to his employees who both saved people and died here.


GORANI: Well, Sara Sidner joins me now live from Istanbul with the latest on the investigation. It's day for now and this gunman is still on the

loose -- Sara.

SIDNER: He is. We still don't know the identity, although the government says that they believe that they know who this person is. A lot of folks

find it odd they haven't released a name or at least more details because how better to try to find him than releasing his name, seeing if there's

anyone who knows him, who has heard of him, who is familiar with him, in any part of this country.

So there's a lot of consternation here, a lot of worry here, so much worry that we talked to the owner of the Reina Nightclub and he said, you know

what, I really am not sure if I'm going to re-open, I have to talk to my employees. They are all in shock.

Some of them died inside and it was our duty to protect people and we did the best we could, but the laws here do not allow our security guards to

have guns and this guy came in with a high-powered rifle, a war machine, and they just could do nothing, nothing to stop him.

And so he says, you know, things have to change here. The world needs to come together and try to figure out how to fight terror together as opposed

to, you know, going after one another for all sorts of different political slights.

[15:15:08]GORANI: Yes, and it's just so sad to see all these personal belongings, really just heartbreaking. Thanks very much, Sara Sidner in


Still to come this evening, a diplomatic merry-go-round in Brussels. Britain has a new ambassador to the E.U. just a few months before Brexit

talks are due to begin.

And later, emotions flare in Israel, a verdict is announced in a case that has deeply divided the nation. We're live in Jerusalem ahead.


GORANI: Britain has a new ambassador to the European Union, his name is Tim Barrow. He was previously British ambassador to Russia. He has a lot

of diplomatic experience.

Meanwhile, his predecessor, Ivan Rogers, has come out swinging in the Brexit (inaudible). In his resignation letter, he told his staff "I hope

you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power."

Pro-remain voices lamented the loss of Rogers, but many of those who supported leave are delighted he is gone. Let's speak to Ian Duncan Smith,

a prominent leave supporter and former leader of the Conservative Party, a member of parliament. He joins me now from Buckinghamshire in England.

Thanks, sir, for being with us.

Tim Barrow, first of all, a former British ambassador to Russia. What do you think of this appointment?

IAN DUNCAN SMITH, FORMER U.K. CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER: Well, I don't know him personally. I, you know, was a member of the cabinet and ran a

department of my own for six years, but I didn't come across him. What I do know from those who served with him, et cetera, is that he is, I think,

it sounds like the right sort of person for this job.

He is very enthusiastic to deliver on the vote that the British people took in vast numbers to leave the E.U. I think he'll work very well with

ministers. I think the problem for his predecessor was that he had a confrontational, not altogether positive style about him.

I think the problem was I don't think his heart was really in it and I think this is what led to the difficulties --

GORANI: Was it because he basically said this could take a lot longer, it could be a lot more complicated, and really the government didn't want to

hear some hard truths? Is that what was -- what happened here?

SMITH: No. No, no, no. No, no. I mean, the whole point about a civil service, which is there permanently is that they go in, advise you. They

look at stuff that you've asked them to look at. They come back with proposals.

GORANI: But isn't that what he did?

TONER: Then they give you their advice. Yes, well, he does. You know, government decides what it decides. Ministers take the responsibility for

those decisions. And time after time when I was running a department, I did much the same.

But what the difference here with Mr. Rogers, Sir Ivan Rogers, was that I think he thought more of himself than that. I think that he thought that

because he had contacts, he somehow should be pretty much calling the tune. I don't think that's how it works. It's up to government ministers to call

the tune.

GORANI: Right.

[15:20:06]SMITH: I also don't think that leaking e-mails and things like that if you're a civil servant is the right way to go because it loses

trust. If you're constantly in the news because of yourself and what your views are, you can't really be trusted in private conversations.

I think it's probably a good thing he's going and I think the new person should take that lesson which is keep your counsel to your minister and

yourself and make sure that you have good arguments but also the same time you look for solutions.

GORANI: The reality is -- nobody really knows, I mean, that's what really is the big question mark over Brexit, isn't it? Nobody knows will it take

ten weeks, will it take two years, could it take as long as a decade to negotiate some good deals between the U.K. and the E.U.? Fundamentally, it

is so uncertain going forward that those perhaps such as yourself, even, who say this will be, quote, "simple," might just be wrong.

SMITH: No, actually, I don't think so. I think that it's clear once you invoke Article 50, you have a maximum of two years. At the end of the two

years, you're out. So whatever you do, you're out.

GORANI: Perhaps with a bad deal.

SMITH: Well, there's no -- there isn't a bad or a good deal here, there is just a deal. What you have here is two elements. Article 50 is about what

I call bits and pieces you have to sort out which is things like do you have obligations to existing pension plans and all the rest of it?

And on the other side, it's what kind of a relationship would you like to have between the two of you after you leave? The second part doesn't have

to end the end of two years because you will, anyway, become a full member again.

The U.K. is a full member. It's not a voting member of the WTO because it's been in this Customs Union in the European Union. We'll leave that.

When we leave that, there is the issue of tariffs.

Now our proposal would be if you haven't arrived at a detailed deal, go for zero tariffs and have access to financial services and then tidy up the

rest afterwards. You can have that as an interim position.

But the key thing is to get on with it. I think actually, Theresa May, the prime minister, made it very clear what she was about, going to take

control of our borders again, not be subject to European law. We were going to make our own trade deals --

GORANI: Without remaining part of the Customs Union, I mean, that's really the big question, isn't it for the U.K.?

SMITH: Exactly. You can't remain --

GORANI: You don't want to be part of the Customs Union because that would require you to accept the free movement of people, but 50 percent of your

country's trade is within the E.U.?

SMITH: No, the customs union -- no, the Customs Union is not about the free movement. The Customs Union is whether or not you can set your own

trade deals. If you're a member of the Customs Union --

GORANI: Or the free market.

SMITH: -- you have to accept all those rules and means you cannot make a trade deal, say, with the United States. The single market being a member

of that would require you to accept all the rules and accept freedom of movement. We're not going to accept either. We want to do trade deals.

I understand in the Senate and the Congress now, there are at least five pieces of legislation going through, paving the way for a free trade deal

with the U.K. We've got China, Australia, New Zealand, India, all lining up to do trade deals with us.

That's the jewel in the crown. That's the reason for leaving so that we can do better trade deals in the European Union's been able to do which is

hardly any in the last 30 years.

GORANI: So you support exit from the Customs Union, exit from the single market and hopefully within two years, some sort of deal for the U.K. that

is beneficial to this country will be ironed out?

SMITH: Also beneficial to the European Union. Bear in mind the European Union sells more goods to the U.K. than the U.K. sells to the European

Union. A million jobs in Germany rely on exports to the U.K. of their cars and motor products.

And so the reality is for the European Union, for particular countries, there is a deep desire to make sure that we don't end up in a tariff-based

process. In other words, zero tariffs, free trade deal, whatever it happens to be, but we don't set up blocks to each other's trade.

That would be madness for the European Union. It would be less madness for the U.K. because, of course, we sell less to them, so we'd be net

beneficiaries. We want free trade. That's what we are believers in.

I'm told the WTO is very pleased we'll be back as a voting member because they see the U.K. as one of the great free trading nations of the world.

That's what we are. We've been trapped inside the European Union's common market as it were which became the single market then become the European

Union itself.

And I think we'll do a lot better outside and that's what the British people voted for. That's what's called democracy.

GORANI: Ian Duncan Smith, thanks very much for joining us this evening on CNN. We appreciate it.

To the Middle East now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a soldier convicted of manslaughter today should be pardoned. He is weighing

in on one of the most polarizing trials in the country's history.

A military court unanimously convicted Elor Azaria for shooting to death a wounded Palestinian, a stabbing suspect, as he lay on the ground already

subdued. Crucial piece of evidence was a video that captured the incident in the West Bank back in March.

[15:25:02]The court rejected the soldier's argument that he acted in self- defense calling the shooting of this subdued Palestinian needless. The case has deeply divided Israel for months. Some people call this soldier a

hero and accuse the military of abandoning him.

Let's get the latest from Oren Lieberman as you're caught up on the background of this story. So we know the position of Netanyahu. We know

that outside the court there were even scuffles while this trial was unfolding, but is Israeli public opinion that divided about this?

ORIN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I would say very much so. Netanyahu was one of just a long list of politicians who called for a pardon. What's

interesting is Netanyahu was one of the last politicians to weigh in on this after it seemed almost every politician in the country offered their

opinion or statement shortly after the verdict came down.

But it has very much divided, split and polarized Israeli society. On one side those who stand with the soldier, either those who believe he acted in

self-defense or those who felt he was justified in shooting a wounded Palestinian assailant was already on the ground.

On the other side, those who simply feel he didn't act correctly, that he broke the military code of ethics, he was responding to a threat that

wasn't there or he was just acting in a way that was absolutely inappropriate in pulling the trigger when there was no threat.


LIEBERMANN (voice-over): Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the heavily guarded Ministry of Defense chanting "death to terrorists" and "our

soldier, our hero." Inside that soldier was found guilty of manslaughter and improper conduct.

The verdict unanimous from a three-member panel of military judges. This case started back in March when he was a soldier, in an Israeli enclave in

a largely Palestinian city in the Southern West Bank.

The Israeli military says two Palestinians attempted to stab soldiers at a checkpoint there. One Palestinian was shot and killed. The other was shot

and subdued on the ground.

The military says 11 minutes later he walked end and shot one bullet into the forehead of the wounded Palestinian suspect, killing him. At issue was

whether Azaria acted out of self-defense or vengeance.

He claimed he was afraid for his life, but the judges systemically rejected nearly every point in his defense. Military prosecutors making it clear

this wasn't an easy day for them or Israel.

NADAV VASMAN (ph), PROSECUTOR (through translator): This is not a happy day for us. We preferred if this act would not have been done and he would

not have to stand trial, but the act was carried out and the offense is serious. Therefore, it was necessary to charge and Azaria was convicted

according to the law.

LIEBERMANN (on camera): This case divided Israeli society. The military here is supposed to be the great unifier transcending differences in

beliefs, cultures and backgrounds. But this case truly split people between those who sided with the soldier and those who sided with military

leadership who said no soldier is above the military code of ethics.

At the time, Israel was facing increased criticism for its soldiers being too quick to pull the trigger, using too much force against a wave of

Palestinian stabbing and ramming attacks. Azaria became the lightning rod for that criticism.

(voice-over): Right-wing politicians have demanded he be pardoned. His lawyers promised an appeal and accused the military court of bias.

BARI KATA (ph), DEFENSE LAWYERE (through translator): This is a harsh verdict that rejected all of the defense's arguments. We claimed from the

beginning that the military court was in favor of the prosecution and we brought evidence for it.

LIEBERMANN: At times, it seemed it wasn't the soldier on trial, but the very values of the Israeli military, a dangerous prospect in a country

where nearly every Jewish teenager serves in the armed forces. It pitted the military versus the soldier here in a trial whose controversy will

continue long after the appeals are finished.


LIEBERMANN: And the verdict has come down now, again, that doesn't mean in any way this controversy is over. Politicians have weighed in from the

very beginning. They will continue to do so through the sentencing, through the appeals, and through the requests now for a pardon -- Hala.

GORANI: All right, Oren Liebermann, thanks very much.

Still ahead, he seems to trust Julian Assange more than the American intelligence community when it comes to allegations of Russian hacking.

We'll talk more about Donald Trump's tweets that have many people scratching their heads. We'll be right back.


[15:31:49] GORANI: Turkey says it has identified the gunman who killed 39 people in a shooting rampage at the Reina nightclub. He's still on the

run, though, and video from inside the nightclub after the attack shows bullet holes and discarded purses, shoes, and hats, presumably left behind

by victims or people fleeing the gunman.

Britain has a new ambassador to the European Union. His name is Tim Barrow. He was, previously, British Ambassador to Russia. Meanwhile,

we're learning more about why his predecessor abruptly stepped down. In a letter to his colleagues, Ivan Rogers hit out at what he called ill-founded

arguments and muddled thinking.

Donald Trump is quoting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to cast further doubt on U.S. intelligence findings that Russia is behind election-related

cyber attacks. In a new interview, Assange denies that Russia was the source of e-mails stolen from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman. He says

even a 14-year-old kid could have done it. But even some of Trump's fellow Republicans say Assange is not exactly an objective credible source. House

Speaker Paul Ryan, for instance, calls him, quote, "a sycophant for Russia."

Let's bring in CNN's Dylan Byers, our senior reporter for media and politics. Let's talk more about sort of these Trump tweets and Trump using

the Assange name to try to sort of pour, you know, cold water on the idea that Russia hacked the election to help him win.

DYLAN BYERS, CNN SENIOR REPORTER FOR MEDIA AND POLITICS: Well, it's really unprecedented, Hala, because what you have here is you have an incoming

President of the United States effectively disagreeing and even sort of going to, you know, sort of public war with his own spies, going against

his own intelligence community in favor of the opinions of Julian Assange who, six years ago, Donald Trump said was disgraceful.

He said the actions of WikiLeaks were disgraceful, and he even suggested that Julian Assange should face the death penalty because of what he had

done and what he had exposed.

Now, that there's a question in the intelligence community about Russian interference in our election process, a suggestion that WikiLeaks might

have played a role in hurting Hillary Clinton, now all of a sudden, he seems sort of very much warm toward Julian Assange. As has Sarah Palin, as

has Sean Hannity, the Fox News anchor. It's a total about face from where they were when the WikiLeaks phenomenon first began.

GORANI: And it's interesting that you mentioned that not all Republicans, even, are on board. I mean, the top Senate Republican Lindsey Graham had

this to say about allegations of Russian hacking.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Mr. Assange is a fugitive from the law hiding in an embassy who has a history of undermining American

interests. I hope no American will be duped by him. You shouldn't give him any credibility. Look at his record in terms of how he treats our

country, and he seems not to be concerned at all by Russia, Iran, or North Korea.

So I hope the President-elect will get his information and trust the American patriots who work in the intelligence community who swear oath and

allegiance to the constitution and not some guy hiding from the law who has a record of undercutting and undermining American democracy.


[15:35:14] GORANI: So it's interesting that we're seeing some division there within the Republican Party as Donald Trump prepares to take office.

Lindsey Graham, among others, is saying, look, Russia is not a friend, and we need to believe our intelligence community. They are great patriots.

What does this tell us about what happens once Donald Trump actually becomes President?

BYERS: Well, after Donald Trump won the election, he certainly saw Republicans sort of opening, even Republicans who had been critical of him

throughout the campaign as well as those who had supported him, they all sort of got behind him. There was this idea that he won, he was the

President-elect, and it was time to work together. And you heard a lot of that rhetoric coming from Republicans on the Hill, in the House, in the

Senate, certainly from Paul Ryan.

But there is a line. There's a line for all these people, and, you know, there's a certain base fundamental presumption in American democracy that

you trust your intelligence officials. You trust the intelligence community, that these entities need to be working together.

Trump is effectively in a posture that is very reminiscent of his campaign rhetoric, of someone not who has won the presidency but someone who is

still trying to win the presidency. He seems to be going against everything, and what it suggests is that he will not necessarily have the

support of many Republicans if he chooses to continue to wage war with his own intelligence community rather than get behind them, listen to what they

have to say, and use what they have to say to inform his thinking on foreign policy as President of the United States.

GORANI: Yes, he does appear a little bit alone on this one. Thanks very much, Dylan Byers, our senior reporter in L.A.

BYERS: Thank you.

GORANI: How unusual is Donald Trump's approach as he prepares to take office and how does it compare to past presidents? Let's bring in Timothy

Naftali in New York. He's a CNN presidential historian and the former director of the Nixon Presidential Library.

Thank you, Timothy, for being with us. So how unprecedented is it for a President-elect to say something like this in public, in this case on

Twitter, saying, essentially, Julian Assange says this, Julian Assange says that, so there you go, here's your proof that the Russians didn't do it,

and by the way, the intelligence, you know, is not necessarily credible. Is this completely unprecedented?


trying to reinvent the modern presidency. I mean, after all, we haven't had Twitter all that long. But the fact of the matter is, presidents

before Twitter, presidents before social media, in the transition period, were pretty quiet. I mean, they didn't try to establish new policies for

the United States until the current President was gone. There was a principle of one President at a time.

What's very interesting about Donald Trump, and what we're all going to watch, is the extent to which he uses social media to create public

pressure for his policies and to weaken whatever his adversaries are saying, whether they're GOP adversaries because he attacked House

Republicans for changing the ethics laws the other day. So his adversaries are not just Democrats, they are also, at times, Republicans.


NAFTALI: I think the key challenge, though, for him and his presidency, is the nature of information. You see, he challenged the U.S. intelligence

community's assessment of the role of Russia in the hacking scandal without actually ever reading the intelligence. He hasn't had the briefing yet.

The briefing, apparently, is scheduled for Friday now. Imagine somebody coming out and attacking intelligence he hasn't even read.


NAFTALI: So his challenge is to figure out --

GORANI: But he's setting the agenda. He's doing it effectively, right? He did it during the campaign. He's doing it now effectively as far as

he's concerned during the transition period, right, because he tweets, for instance, against that move to gut the ethics office on Capitol Hill for

the House of Representatives. A few hours later, that initiative is pulled. So from the President-elect's perspective, it works.

NAFTALI: Well, I mean, he's not President yet. Let's see how effective --

GORANI: The President-elect, yes.

NAFTALI: No, but I'm saying that I'm not sure how effective it's going to be in foreign policy to distance yourself from your allies or probable

allies in Congress. There's some very strong-willed, very knowledgeable Congressional leaders, Republican congressional leaders, who know an awful

lot about foreign policy, and he's got to be wary of getting too far ahead of them.

So I agree, there's been some gains. The Carrier business, this was his attempt to secure some jobs that might have gone to Mexico. That seemed

helpful to him. But we haven't yet seen how he's going to function as President, and I'm not sure that the presidency by tweet will be as easy

for him as the President-elect transition by tweet has been so far.

[15:40:25] GORANI: Let me ask you a little bit about what you think the relationship with Russia will be like, how it will evolve from the current

frosty relationship, one could argue, between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. Many overtures on Twitter. For instance, Donald Trump said good

move on Vladimir Putin's part not to retaliate to the measures taken by the Obama administration in retaliation for meddling in the U.S. elections.

So, you know, he's making overtures, so we could expect that relationship to change.

NAFTALI: Well, I'm one of those people who assesses foreign policy relationships by the interest of the country, not by the personalities of

the people in power. I'm going to be looking and many of us will be looking to see if Russia and the United States can have similar interests

in the near abroad and the former eastern European empire.

Will Trump and Putin agree about Ukraine? Will Trump and Putin agree about Syria? Will Trump and Putin agree about Israel and the settlements? It's

not clear to me how far this bromance can shape the basic challenges and the tensions between the national interests of the United States and the

national interests of Russia.

GORANI: Now, one last question, and this is an open-ended one. And it's very difficult to answer in a short amount of time, but, I mean, as a

presidential historian, as you look forward, as you look into the future to a Trump presidency, I mean, what is the first question you'll want

answered? What is the first thing you'll be looking out for?

NAFTALI: Well, I'll be -- and historians are lousy at prediction, OK?


NAFTALI: So let's let everybody out there understand that, but --

GORANI: We've all been lousy at predictions, trust me.

NAFTALI: No, but I just want --

GORANI: The last few years. Yes.


NAFTALI: American presidents tend to try to establish their presidency very quickly and very early on. Donald Trump has made some contradictory

promises to the American people. On the one hand, pushing for the repeal of Obamacare; on the other hand, retaining some of the benefits of

Obamacare. He's talked about approaches to Syria which would involve working with Russia, but some of the things he wants to achieve in Syria

might not be possible if we're too close to Russia.

What I'm looking forward to seeing is how he resolves the tensions within the rhetoric that he used to win the election. And he's going to be trying

to do that very soon in his presidency. So we have a lot to look forward to, a lot to watch, and it's very hard to predict what will happen, but I'm

sure it will be interesting.

GORANI: But if he continues to use this communication method, Twitter, you know, threatening corporations, making big policy pronouncements in 140

characters, I mean, what will the impact of that be?

NAFTALI: Well, look, it's very hard to imagine that you can establish policies in 140 characters. You can establish the personality of the White

House. At a certain point, he's going to have to establish a real communications operation, and he's going to have to work with the leaders

in Congress. And the leaders in Congress, the Republican leaders in Congress, have a different agenda.

If you look at the details, they actually have quite a different agenda from his. How those tensions are going to work themselves out is hard to

say, but it's clear there's a tension there. So this doesn't even involve the Democrats. I haven't even mentioned what the Democrats might do. I'm

just talking about the basic tension between the Congressional Republicans and Donald Trump who, in many ways, many Republicans don't consider a


GORANI: All right. Timothy Naftali, thanks very much. Pleasure having you on. Really appreciate it.

NAFTALI: My pleasure, Hala. Thank you.

GORANI: Speaking of Republicans and Democrats on the Hill, they've only been back at work for two days, but they're already fighting over the

future of American health care. Barack Obama, himself, made a trip to Congress in an effort to save his Affordable Care Act. It's popularly

known as Obamacare. Republicans have vowed to repeal it, but Democrats say simply scrapping the plan is not good enough. Listen.


MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: Obamacare has worked a hardship on American families, on American businesses, and in a

very simple conclusion, the American people have sent new leadership here because Obamacare has failed. And it's been rejected by the American



that has going for it is alliteration. They have no replacement plan. They have no replacement plan because they can't agree. They don't have

the votes for a replacement plan. So to repeal and then delay is an act of cowardice. That means we don't really know what we're doing.


[15:45:19] GORANI: Well, you heard from Mike Pence, the Vice President- elect; Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, there with their very different points of view on repealing Obamacare. This is THE WORLD


Preparing for the worst, U.S. military families in South Korea practice evacuation routes as they keep a wary eye on the latest threats from the


And hundreds of thousands of people are in Las Vegas for the big Consumer Electronics Show. We'll show you some of the newest products in just a few



GORANI: South Korea says it's keeping a close eye on Pyongyang. It normally does especially after North Korean leader Kim Jong-un says he is

close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile. American troops in South Korea are ready for an escalation. And in a CNN exclusive, Alexandra

Field shows how even the kids of military families are getting ready.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, just from the back?

NICOLE MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES MILITARY VETERAN: You're like a fish in a fish tank, Brianna.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Brianna Martinez, home is a place that's still technically at war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Again, this will protect your child from a chemical and biological agent to up to 12 hours, so that we can evacuate --

FIELD (voice-over): The Martinezes are an American military family currently based in South Korea where U.S. forces could, one day, be called

to respond to threats from North Korea, a looming possibility that could leave American civilians on the peninsula looking for safety.

FIELD (on camera): Do the girls understand what kind of emergency they're practicing for?

MARTINEZ: We told the girls that Korea was at war at one point, so we come over here to defend what we fought for.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As soon as you're set, let me know.

FIELD (voice-over): The South Korean and the U.S. military regularly run joint drills to maintain their readiness, but this drill is for American

military families. It shows them how their soldiers could help them evacuate if tensions between the North and the South turn into conflict.

Nicole Martinez and her family volunteered for the practice run that also helps the Army prepare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome aboard, Trek 06, operated by the Alaska International Guard.

FIELD (voice-over): The families learn where to assembly in case of an emergency, manmade or otherwise. They're shown what they'll be allowed to

pack and how the military will keep track of them. The drill sends them South. They spend two days hopscotching by bus and by helicopter between

U.S. installations before reaching a South Korean airfield and flying out.

FIELD (on camera): In the event of a real threat, the U.S. State Department would decide how many Americans and their families would need to

evacuate. In order to get people off the peninsula quickly, the Army says it would likely send families to safe havens right here in the region,

places like Okinawa, Japan. This is somewhere that families could take shelter before planning that much longer trip back to the States.

[15:50:18] FIELD (voice-over): Real world lessons for American children seeing a different part of the world.

FIELD (on camera): Do your kids know the name, Kim Jong-un?

MARTINEZ: They don't. We haven't touched on that, but our military kids aren't -- this is what they learn in school. They know what's going on.

They know that they have to keep up with current events that are going on around the world.

FIELD (voice-over): Raising a family in South Korea, Martinez, who is a veteran, says she feels safe. She doesn't worry about a threat. She knows

it's possible, but she wants her children to learn how to prepare.

Alexandra Field, CNN, Seoul, South Korea.


GORANI: Coming up, from zero to 100 kilometers an hour in just over two seconds, it sounds impressive but not everything about the Faraday Future

car's big unveiling went according to plan. We'll be right back.


GORANI: New Year means new tech, and the annual gathering of innovators in Las Vegas to find the next big thing is unfolding. A lot of chatter has

been around Faraday Future. It's an electric car startup and it unveiled its flashy new product. There was, however, just one issue.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. It seems like it's a little bit lazy tonight.


GORANI: The car was supposed to move on its own after an investor prompted it, but it didn't. Not a great presentation to kick things off for the

company. CNN Tech Correspondent Samuel Burke is there in Las Vegas.

Let's talk about this company. It was a hiccup at the debut. I mean, how embarrassing was it? Was does it say about the actual car?

SAMUEL BURKE, CNN MONEY BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: It was pretty embarrassing for the company, Hala, though that same thing happened

to Steve Jobs, so maybe it's a good omen for them. This company, Faraday Future, is quite mysterious. They want to be a competitor to Tesla, but

they've been all talk, no walk until last night when they showed their first production vehicle.

As you mentioned, zero to nearly 100 kilometers per hour in just 2.39 seconds in front of us. The car has a range -- of course, it's an electric

car, so this is the most important part about it -- of about 611 kilometers on just one charge.

Maybe if you're the type of person who loses their keys, Hala, you don't strike me as that type of person, but maybe you can use facial recognition

to get in the car. And if you are too tired to look for a parking spot or just can't find one, you can actually get out of the car and let it do the

searching for you, and then it'll just back into a space. Of course, if it works. And that is after that big hiccup. It left people with some

questioning marks.

Still, a lot of excitement around this company. A Chinese billionaire who created the equipment of China's Netflix is the big backer of this. So

we'll see. But for now, it's living in Tesla's shadow, that's for sure.

GORANI: Is it on sale yet?

BURKE: Oh, well, you can pre-reserve it. And they don't tell you how much it will cost. Probably between $100,000 and $200,000, Hala, you can pre-

reserve it for $5,000 now. Refundable, don't worry, Hala. So I'm sure you'll fork out for a holiday gift for me.

GORANI: Yes, right. I wouldn't even fork it out for a holiday gift for myself. We hear you have some wearable technology that could improve

people's health. What's that about?

[15:55:10] BURKE: Well, because I forgot to give you a holiday gift --

GORANI: Oh, we have a show and tell. Get ready, everyone.


BURKE: -- I'll be bringing you this. I won't be falling live on your show the way I did last year on that skateboard, but this is actually quite

interesting because it has to do with health. And so often people say, well, CES is cool but what do they do to improve people's lives?

This is a scarf, actually, made for people who live in climates that might have a lot -- or rather, the environments that might have a lot of

pollution in them. So it's a scarf that disguises -- you can be like this and be on your bicycle maybe -- disguises what's really inside it, a

pollution mask. They have them for men and for women. So I'll be coming back to London with this for you. It costs about 150 euros.

That's a big holiday gift for you, Hala. It's worth it just being a few days late. That's all.

GORANI: But in Asia, I was in Asia recently and a lot of people, I'd say a vast majority of people, actually wear masks to protect themselves against

the pollution and germs.

BURKE: Oh, yes, and in Mexico City, you see a lot of folks like that, too. It's a French company, actually, and they said they're going to be pushing

hard in Asia and some of those cities that are so well known for having such high pollutants.

GORANI: But that kind of looks like a baby onesie for some reason, to me, from this distance. It does, right? Doesn't it?

Drones. Talk to us about drones. Some new security measures that companies are putting in place.

BURKE: Hala, CES has become all about drones in the past few years. DJI, I remember when that company was just a little small startup. They're

still waiting to come and talk to us now that they're the biggest drone manufacturer in the world.

This drone that you're seeing right now actually folds up to the size of a water bottle, Hala, but it is important to talk about the security measures

because now that there are so many more drones, so pervasive, you know, governments, airports, all around the world trying to figure out what to

do. You remember that story that we had back in London of drones actually bringing drugs into a prison not too far from your studio?

Well, now, they have what's called geofencing, Hala. These maps that live inside these drones are actually looking around and already have preset

areas so they can't go to those areas. So even if I try to fly a drone to a prison which, obviously, I won't be doing any time soon, it will stop me

from doing that. The same for the White House. You get too close to the White House, even if you want to keep on going, the drone will stop you.

So we're seeing a lot, not just the rise of drones, but what to do to stop drones.

GORANI: Right, yes. That's interesting and also, I mean, quite necessary. You don't want all these drones flying in sensitive areas. Thanks very

much, Samuel Burke. We'll see you soon.

This has been THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. We'll see you same time, same place tomorrow. I'm Hala Gorani. Thanks for being with us. "QUEST MEANS

BUSINESS" is next.