Return to Transcripts main page


Supreme Court: Parts Of Travel Ban Can Go Into Effect; Theresa May's Conservatives Strike Government Deal; Coalition: ISIS Down To "Couple Hundred" Fighters In Mosul; Trump Welcomes Indian Prime Minister To The White House; Turkey Sides with Qatar in Diplomatic Crisis; 75 High-Rise Buildings Fail Safety Tests in U.K.; Human Trafficking Victims Found During MS-13 Raid; Controversial Diplomat Returning to Moscow. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired June 26, 2017 - 15:00:00   ET




[15:02:03] CYRIL VANIER, CNN ANCHOR: U.S President Donald Trump is calling this a victory for national security. The Supreme Court has cleared the

way for parts of his travel ban to go into effect.

Citizens of Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, six Muslim majority countries will be impacted if they do not have bonafide ties to

the United States. People studying in the U.S. or people who have family or jobs in the states will not be affected.

For now this is a partial victory for Mr. Trump. It's a temporary measure as the court will hear arguments on the ban in October and then decide on

its constitutionality.

CNN's U.S. Supreme Court reporter, Ariane De Vogue is in Washington. She joins us live. We are going to breakdown what this decision means. Help

us understand the Supreme Court and what does it say?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Well, the Supreme Court allowed parts of this travel ban to go into effect as it applies to foreign

nationals where the court said lack of bonafide relationship with the United States. That's the key here, the connection to the United States.

And the Supreme Court said that it would hear arguments on this next term. So this is a partial victory for President Trump. Keep in mind, he lost so

badly in the lower courts and so many lower courts on this travel ban.

And basically, the courts said -- President Trump released a statement saying, "This is a victory for national security." The challenges on their

part, they came back and said, well, look, most of our plaintiffs already have that connection to the United Sates.

But fairly, here's what I think is interesting and that was the dissent that was issued with the partial dissent written by Justice Thomas, and

Gorsuch, and Alito. They said they would have given the president a much cleaner victory. They would have allowed all of the travel ban to go into


They said that they think that when the court hears arguments, the government has a good chance of winning. And they said something else,

they said that the court -- the majority came up with this compromise and they worry that the compromise might cause some sort of chaos as people try

to figure out who would it applies to.

They said it could invite a flood of litigation until the case is finally resolved as parties in courts struggle to determine what exactly

constitutes a bonafide relationship. So that will be something to watch.

VANIER: Who can -- when does this -- when does this start to be applied and who can no longer come into the U.S.?

DE VOGUE: So what we're -- we are waiting to hear more guidance from the Department of Justice, Department of Human Services, and they believed that

this can almost immediately go into effect, but what's key here is to remember and the court laid it out pretty specifically.

If you have a connection to the United States, that can be OK. For instance, if you're a student at one of the universities or a worker who

has a job. If those people who have no connections who would be affected by this, would be impacted.

VANIER: All right. Ariane De Vogue in Washington, our Supreme Court reporter, thank you very much.

Let me now turn to CNN legal analyst, Page Pate. He joins us from Atlanta. Page, how are courts or immigration offices going to decide what a bonafide

relationship is? I mean, we have a couple of examples, if you're a student, OK. If you have immediate family, OK. Those are clear enough,

but I imagine there is a gray area there as well.

PAGE PATE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think so and I think ultimately the details of how this particular ban is going to be implemented will be

critical not just dealing with the day-to-day problems who can come into country and who cannot.

But ultimately in the Supreme Court's determination of whether or not this ban is constitutional or not. I think ultimately the administration is

going to determine that people on the frontlines, the agents who are there at the airport, border checkpoints, will make that initial determination.

And in many cases, it will probably be an easy call. If someone has absolutely no connection to the United States, they will be denied entry if

they're from one of these six countries. But it's going to be the close cases that I think deserve attention and will ultimately be litigated in


VANIER: And presumably they are going to get guidelines from the administration?

PATE: They have to issue some guidelines. I mean, you pointed out earlier correctly that the Supreme Court in its order today did give a couple of

examples, primarily the plaintiffs in those two cases who had strong family relationships or had been accepted or admitted to a United States


Those folks who can prove that relationship, that connection will be allowed to come into the country, but how close of a family member can it

be? What about in-laws? What about cousins? And what type of job prospect does it have to be, a firm offer, a contingent offer? All of

those issues are left open for determination.

VANIER: How long before we get a final ruling on this? Because this is only a temporary measure.

PATE: That's exactly right. The court indicated today in its order that it intends to accept this case for briefing in its October term. So later

this year the court will accept briefs on the merits of the case and ultimately hold oral argument. So I expect the next term of court will be

when the case is finally considered.

VANIER: Based on what you saw and what you read from the judges including the dissenting judges, what do you think -- where do you think the Supreme

Court will eventually end up on the question of whether or not this travel ban is constitutional?

PATE: Well, it's always dangerous to predict the court, but we do see a few things that are clear from the order today. Number one, there are

three justices who clearly believed that this current order as drafted is constitutional.

I think we saw that from Justice Thomas' opinion that was joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. They are OK with what Trump tried to do. The

question now is, are there two other justices who will join them and form a majority upholding the ban?

Probably going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy, and I think we see somewhat of a compromise in the order today. It would

have been a lot easier. The dissenters are right to go ahead and allow the full ban to take effect immediately or to completely uphold the injunction.

You wouldn't have all these problems. You wouldn't have these close cases. But I think ultimately there will be some sort of a compromise so that they

can get the total number of votes they need to make a final determination on the ban.

VANIER: What about the legal argument that this falls under the president's prerogatives, you know, because it's a national security issue

essentially the courts should have nothing to say about this.

PATE: Right. I mean, that's ultimately the argument the administration has been making for some time and they are correct. The Constitution under

Article 2 does give the president a lot of power when it comes to immigration decisions. Congress has even given the president more power

through laws that Congress has passed dealing with immigration.

But that power does have limit and that limit is contained in our Bill of Rights, which basically says that we cannot make any particular law that

discriminates on the basis of religion. So the Supreme Court will have to decide if this ban is OK as far as an exercise of the executive power and

doesn't go so far as to discriminate against one particular religion.

VANIER: Page, I'm curious. I've discussed this issue with you back when the travel ban was held up in the courts several months ago. Are you

surprised by what you saw today?

PATE: I don't think so. I mean, we always knew that once it got to the Supreme Court, it would be a close case. Once the new justice, Justice

Gorsuch, took the bench, we knew then that there were five reliable conservative votes.

Obviously the Trump administration has always been confident that once the case made it to the Supreme Court, it would be to their advantage. I was a

little bit surprised frankly at how the Circuit Court ruled on the revised travel ban.

You know, the second one that the administration came out with. I think they tailored that ban basically for the Supreme Court. They took out

specific references to religious minorities. They tried to water it down.

And Trump was right when he said it's a watered down version. It was. And apparently enough for the Supreme Court or at least we'll see.

VANIER: CNN's legal analyst, Page Pate, thank you very much for your insights. And of course, round three of this will start in October as we

mentioned. Thanks a lot.

PATE: Thank you, Cyril.

VANIER: Now it's been 18 days since the U.K. general election which caused Theresa May her majority. The prime minister has now reached an agreement

that should keep her in power.

Her Conservative Party has done a deal with the DUP, a Northern Irish party, which -- it's called a "Confidence and Supply Agreement" meaning

they won't be in an official coalition, but the DUP will back the Conservatives on major votes. Nic Robertson explains from Downing Street.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. It really doesn't appear as if Theresa May has had to make any significant political

concessions. Arlene Foster from the DUP did say that she had agreement from Theresa May that there would not be a cut in the state pension.

That there would not be a cut in the winter fuel subsidies for pensioners. But although there things were originally on the Conservative Party

manifesto going into the election, these were things that Theresa May have left out of the queen's speech.

Meaning pretty much the Conservatives have sidelined those issues, those non-vote winners, and they weren't going to push them forward anyway. But

what Theresa May has done is commit a significant amount of money at the DUP's request for Northern Ireland. This is how Arlene Foster put it.


ARLENE FOSTER, DUP LEADER: We welcome this financial support of 1 billion pounds in the next two years as well as providing new flexibilities on

almost 500 million pounds previously committed to Northern Ireland.


ROBERTSON: Now this money is to be used on infrastructure projects including for schools, hospitals, these sorts of things, and already some

of the smaller parties in Northern Ireland already talking about which traffic intersection should be renovated first.

But we have heard from the Irish foreign minister weighing into this issue, and it relates to the new committee that the DUP say has now been formed, a

committee between senior conservative politicians and DUP politicians.

One senior DUP politician I've talked to said that his committee will allow the DUP to have a voice on Brexit. Now the Irish foreign minister in

Ireland, of course, doing a huge amount of trade with Britain potentially affected by the shape of any Brexit deal does have a concern here.

And the Irish foreign minister has said, look, from his perspective, he would rather -- that rather not that the DUP have an independent voice to

the conservatives over Brexit. He would rather that all the politicians of Northern Ireland were speaking together one voice on Brexit.

So we are already beginning to hear some push back on it undoubtedly this is only the beginning and not the end of it. But for Theresa May this has

secured those 10 DUP votes that she so very badly needed. Nic Robertson, CNN, London.

VANIER: Let's bring in CNN political analyst, Carole Walker, who is with us now. So Carole, Nic was telling us about the amount of money this is

going to cost the British government. It's not every day that you can put a price tag on a prime minister's survival.

But let me show what the "London Evening Standard" is making of this, "I demand the sum of 1 billion pounds." You see the reference to Austin

Powers. And I mean, that's just -- it's a lot of money for a party that has 10 seats in parliament.

CAROLE WALKER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, 1 billion pounds is a huge sum of money and of course, it's going to be hugely welcomed by those

communities in Northern Ireland. But many other voters and their MPs representing them in other parts of the U.K. are saying, well, we'd like

some money like that too.

Carwyn Jones (ph) is the leader of the divulge assembly in Wales said this was a straight fund. The main opposition, Labour Party, described it as a

grubby little deal and a political bribe.

Because what this does is that it enable the British government to get through some of the key votes not least the vote coming up later this week

to get through the queen's speech is programmed for government an important hurdle.

And that is just one element of a deal that is hugely controversial. The government has also agreed to drop some changes to pensions, which were a

part of its manifesto and which it brought the last general election.

The Democratic Unionist Party is a party which opposes any extension of abortion right in Northern Ireland, which opposes gay marriage in Northern

Ireland, and although it won't have a say on those sorts of issues in the rest of the U.K., many senior figures within Theresa May's own conservative

party are saying come on, this is toxic for the Conservative Party.

We spent years trying to modernize the image of --

VANIER: It's going to look like the nasty party again.

WALKER: We're going to look like the nasty party, a phrase which Theresa May herself used so it is hugely controversial and of course, it comes at a

very delicate time for the government of Northern Ireland, the divulge government in Northern Ireland, which is currently suspended.

A part of the Good Friday Agreement, which historically ended the many, many years of conflict in Northern Ireland, the British government is

committed to being even handed.

And its critics are now saying, how you are possibly going to be even handed in dealing with the future of Northern Ireland's government if

you're tied up in the deal with the DUP --

VANIER: It's supposed to be an honest broker. And I think adding insult to injury as far as this money is concerned and this amount of money 1

billion pounds, just earlier this month, Theresa May, the prime minister was on TV telling a nurse, you know, who haven't been -- haven't seen a

salary raise in years, I think more than seven years.

Theresa May was saying, well, we don't have a magic money tree that we just shake to get money. It looks like she found the tree?

WALKER: Yes, some are saying, well, Northern Ireland is going to have a glossy new hospital with its own Accident and Emergency Department at the

end of every street.

Other parts of the country is saying, well, if you can effectively end austerity in Northern Ireland, at least, loosening the reins on the

spending, well, then you've got to be prepared to do that in other parts of the country.

And she is going to come under huge amount of pressure over this. And don't forget that this deal gets at through some of the big votes that

she's got. It enables here to survive at least until the end of the week.

But the DUP have not signed up to every specific measure. They said they are going to support Brexit overall, but they are not going to support

every detail.


WALKER: Theresa May have to continue to do haggling and dealing and wrangling day by day, vote by vote. And the DUP are going to be able to

wield an awful lot of power, and that is going to cause a great deal of resentment elsewhere.

VANIER: Let's get into those Brexit negotiations which began last week. Today, Theresa May sort of finessed the package that she is offering E.U.

citizens in the U.K. And this is the central message that she put out to E.U. citizens.


THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I know there have been some anxiety about what would happen to E.U. citizens at the point we leave the European

Union. Today, I want to put that anxiety to rest.

I want to completely reassure people that under these plans, no E.U. citizen currently in the U.K. lawfully will be asked to leave at the point

the U.K. leaves the E.U. We want you to stay.


VANIER: Well, the E.U. has already said that this is not clear enough and it's actually (inaudible) offers insufficient. So clearly, Theresa May is

going to have a lot of haggling to do with those 27 European countries. How much power and how much of a mandate does she have now?

WALKER: Well, Theresa May said this was a fair and serious offer, and she clearly hoped that it would be seen as a gesture of goodwill that might

improve the very difficult climate in those talks with the European Union over the terms of Britain's departure, which of course, has to take place

in two years' time.

But I think many of those other E.U. leaders who she met yesterday would have like to have heard the sorts of details that we got today when she was

sitting around the table talking to them.

And there is still an awful lot of details that have got to be finalized. She said that anyone from the E.U. who's been in the country for five years

will be able to continue, to have those same rights.

There's going to be a two-year period of grace, but it's not clear exactly where this cut or point comes. And there is also already a big

disagreement over who is going to oversee this agreement.

The E.U. leaders say that it should be the European Court Justice. Theresa May has said no way. This is going to be overseen by British courts.

That's going to be a huge source of disagreement.

And of course, she's got to get a reciprocal deal that also guarantees similar rights for a million British citizens living in other parts of the

European Union.

So this is a step, a small step, but it's certainly hasn't gone down the way that Theresa May might have hoped.

VANIER: Carole Walker, thank you very much for your insights. Carole Walker, CNN political analyst, thank you very much.

WALKER: Thank you.

VANIER: Still to come on THE WORLD RIGHT NOW, the final battle, ISIS down to a couple of hundred fighters in the city of Mosul, but clearing those

last few blocks will be a deadly challenge. Stay with us.


VANIER: Building by building, corner by corner, Iraqi forces have been chipping away ISIS control in the city of Mosul. Now the U.S.-led

coalition says the extremist group is down to just a couple of hundred fighters there.

Green sections on this map show areas under Iraqi government control. The small dark blue area is the heart of the old city and it's still held by

ISIS. The coalition says there is no way to estimate just how many civilians remain in that warzone.

The ISIS fighters who are still in Mosul are not raising the white flag, however. Let's cross to CNN's Nick Paton Walsh. He is tracking the story

from Irbil in Iraq.

Nick, how much of the city is left to recover?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, entirely clear, in terms of the old city, we have seen maps and heard reports

suggesting that we are now seeing too sort of fingers, if you like, of Iraqi Special Forces units pushing into an old city area.

Now the images you are seeing here show the mosque and the devastation done to it. That is about a week ago. Now the (inaudible) mosque, the central

kind of figure point both of the old city, but also frankly of the monuments of ISIS' own ideology.

They seemed to have blown it up themselves rather than want to see it fall into the hands of the Iraqi Special Forces who are now incredibly close to

it from what we can see.

Now what's impeding their further advance and frankly from the images I've seen, they seemed to be possibly as close 300 to 400 meters away from

reaching the river on the other side of the old city effectively cutting it into two.

What's impeding that advance is the next thing you see in these images here and that's are the civilians, who are fleeing for their lives from gaps in

the rubble often emerging desperate for water, food.

They are being used as human shields by ISIS. As you said, we have no idea how many people really are in there. The U.N. initially said over a

hundred thousand, have also said that between 8,000 to 15,000 maybe escaping everyday.

That was potentially 10 days ago. So there could be an awful lot less in there now, but what's key too as a U.S. official says there are probably a

couple of hundred ISIS fighters still holding out inside. That is an incredibly small number.

It's a very, very tight densely packed urban area. Hard for cars to go down these ancient streets frankly. So there will bloody and desperate

fighting ahead. The question is how long will it take.

The U.S. official saying to me, look, we have balance here, I'm paraphrasing, a balance between needing to preserve life and moving slowly

but also having to get people out quickly because frankly they are starving.

So a very desperate moment. This is frankly the last chapter of ISIS really in Iraq (inaudible) to help assist as a low level insurgency, but at

some point, the Iraqi government will consider the offensive against the old city to have been successful.

That could be not too distant from the time in which I'm talking, but in that period, many civilian lives hang in the balance. ISIS willing to use

(inaudible) policy on their most sacred monuments like the al-Nuri mosque. Heaven forbid, what that means for the civilians they are currently using

as human shields -- Cyril.

VANIER: Nick Paton Walsh will be helping us track that last chapter of the battle for Mosul. Thank you very much. Nick Paton Walsh in Northern Iraq.

Now U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the White House, that should be in about 10 minutes. It's the

first face-to-face meeting the two.

And while there is room for common ground, especially on issues like defense, other subjects could cause major friction. The president has

called for a review of the visa program that benefits India's tech industry. There is also potential for clash over climate.

New Delhi bureau chief, Ravi Agrawal is in New York right now. Ravi, the U.S. president has, as we know, alienated some traditional U.S. allies in

the recent past. How is he perceived in India as this meeting gets underway?

RAVI AGRAWAL, CNN NEW DELHI BUREAU CHIEF: Well, President Trump has some businesses in India, which he's known for. He has a number of buildings

that bear his name in the city of Mumbai and in the city of Pune and a few more on the way.

Most Indians are familiar with President Trump from his appearances on "The Apprentice" many years ago because that show also aired in India through

one of its affiliates there.

But more recently, I think they've become familiar with President Trump just through watching news coverage on channels like ours in India. And

what they are keenly watching in India is to get a sense of what he thinks of India. How he sees India's face in Asia?

I should remind you that previous American presidents, Obama, Bush, Clinton, have all seen India as a country that strategically the United

States should partner with through a variety of reasons.

President Obama famously said that India and the United States could form the defining partnership of the 21st Century. And when you have a vision

and a statement like that from the very top, what analysts and insiders say is that it filters down.

And it needs the decision making from diplomat and delegates of the presidents of both sides to go forward and strike deals when it comes to

defense, when it comes to nuclear agreements, when it comes to climate agreements, and of course, trade.

So one of the things that everyone will be looking out for very closely when President Trump and Prime Minister Modi meet shortly is to see whether

they can strike the same chemistry that Prime Minister Modi shared with President Obama.

VANIER: Donald Trump like to make deals. Where do you think he can make a deal here?

AGRAWAL: Well, it seems like one small deal has been made already. Just a few hours ago, the U.S. State Department released some information saying

that they have designated a Cashmere militant as a designated terrorist, which means that it prevents American citizens from doing business with

that particular group.

So for example, that's one thing that already in India is being seen as a mini-victory for Prime Minister Modi. But really, I mean, what today is

mostly going to be about at the headline level is how these two leaders get on, what kind of chemistry they share.

They've already had a few disagreements in public. President Trump when he was pulling out of the Paris agreement said that India has been asking for

billions and billions of dollars in aid.

India quite angrily responded to that by saying that no, it hasn't been asking for aid and that if anything it is a leader on solar energy and on

matters all related to fighting climate change.

So that maybe an issue of friction between the two. Obviously, Prime Minister Modi as you mentioned is going to bring up the immigration issue

because India sends a number of people to the United States every year on a tech visa. It's known as the H1B visa for highly skilled workers, which is

unpopular here.

So that will be a bone of contention between the two that is likely to come up today.

VANIER: Ravi Agrawal joining us live from New York. Thank you so much.

And coming up on the show, more and more high rise buildings in Britain have been found with cladding similar to that on Grenfell Tower. So far

every one of those failed a safety test. We'll have more from one of those towers in London just after the break.


[15:30:11] VANIER: Welcome back. Let's go back to our top story this hour. U.S. President Donald Trump is claiming victory after the U.S.

Supreme Court decided to allow parts of his travel ban to go into effect. The Court says it will hear the full case in October.

Also happening today, the President has a tough road ahead on a key legislative push. Mr. Trump and Republican Senate leaders are scrambling

to get enough votes for their health care bill, but the math might be a problem.

Five Republicans say that, with the bill as it currently stands, they are not going to vote for it. However, Republicans can only afford to lose two

votes since no Democrat is expected to vote for it.

The President took to Twitter earlier, saying, Republican senators are working very hard to get there with no help from the Democrats. Not easy.

Perhaps just let OCare, or ObamaCare, crash and burn.

CNN's Political Director, David Chalian, joins us now from Washington.

David, let's start with the travel ban. The President finds himself partially vindicated by the Courts. Politically, how do you think this

plays out for him?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Politically, this is good news for Donald Trump. He had, you'll recall, been thwarted by the courts previous

to today's Supreme Court ruling on this issue.

And you'll recall, at the very beginning of his administration, this sort of marred his administration out of the gate. Chaotic scenes at airports.


CHALIAN: The courts ruling against him, go back and revise it. Courts ruled against him again. Now, the Supreme Court is saying, hey, this isn't

entirely unconstitutional, what Donald Trump is trying to do. They gave him a partial victory, hereby allowing some of his proposed travel ban to

go into effect.

VANIER: Hey, I'm curious. In the meantime, the administration has been in place for five months now. And the administration's original argument

about the travel ban had been, we need to suspend immigration coming from those countries for three months in order to review our vetting process,

you know, on what grounds we let people in. The administration has been in place for five months. Has it reviewed vetting procedures?

CHALIAN: It is an ongoing process, reviewing these vetting procedures. You're right to note that when it was written, it was written with this 90-

day time frame, and some of the opponents say, well, now, it's moot. It's not moot yet because they are still reviewing vetting procedures.

In fact, Donald Trump recently signed an extension of that process, and so this will go on. It may, you are right to note, in the long run, be moot

by the time the Supreme Court takes up the full case and perhaps rules on it a year from now. By then, perhaps the administration will have already

put a full, new vetting process in place.

VANIER: And also, Donald Trump might actually win this case from the Supreme Court. I don't know what you think, but I think it reminds us

that, you know, he's a fighter. And some of those fights are very long, but he may end up winning them.

CHALIAN: Yes, no doubt. And the Supreme Court here took a different tact, if you will, than did the lower courts, which, for the administration,

you'd think bodes well if you're going to go argue this case for the full ban in the fall because you already know that a majority of justices are

aligned that some portions of this are indeed constitutional. So you're right, taking the long view here is one that is benefitting Donald Trump


VANIER: Tell me about health care now. This is major for the President. I mean, it was a key part of his campaign, repealing ObamaCare. The Senate

wants to vote on this, this week. For the moment, they don't have the votes. Where is this headed?

CHALIAN: Yes, this is going to be a huge week in the health care battle here. Remember, it's not just President Trump that promised this last

year. Republicans in the United States have been promising this for the better part of the last nine years.

It is remarkable that this has been the fundamental promise that Republicans have made to voters, and yet what we're seeing is that their

proposed alternative is very unpopular here. That's the struggle Republicans find them in.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, does not yet have the 50 votes he needs at minimum. He's only got 52 Republicans to play with. And

so now the horse-trading will be going on behind the scenes, and we might see where we are by about Thursday when McConnell would like to have a vote

on the Senate floor.

VANIER: And to what extent is Donald Trump personally involved in this orchestrating? I know the White House said the President is working the

phones and that tends to be the phrase they put out there in those circumstances. How true is it?

CHALIAN: Yes. Some of the Republicans up on Capitol Hill in the Senate, thank you, but no thank you, Mr. President, we're going to try to hammer

this out amongst our colleagues, ourselves here, not wanting Donald Trump to sort of tweet about it or drive the message off course.

[15:34:58] But you are right, Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, said today -- he named four senators. Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, Shelley

Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rob Portman of Ohio, all of whom he said that the President had called, spoken to.

So he is working the phones and trying to get a sense of where each of those senators are and what their concerns are. Whether or not we'll see

Donald Trump sort of roll up his sleeves and get in there to change the legislative language, I doubt that will be happening.

VANIER: All right. CNN's David Chalian, thank you very much for the health check on two --

CHALIAN: Thank you.

VANIER: -- major policy proposals for Donald Trump. Thank you very much.

Now, for Qatar, the clock is ticking. The tiny Gulf state has just one week to respond to a series of demands laid down by neighboring countries

who are boycotting it right now.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says dialogue can help solve the diplomatic crisis. He is urging Qatar to sit down with Bahrain, Egypt,

Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Qatar was handed a list of demands by those countries on Friday that includes shutting down the Al

Jazeera Media Network and reducing diplomatic ties with Iran.

Meanwhile, Turkey is coming down on Qatar's side. President Erdogan says the list of demands made on Qatar are, quote, an attack on Qatar's


Soner Cagaptay is with us from Washington. He is with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He's also the author of the book, "The New

Sultan: Erdogan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey."

Soner, why is Turkey siding with Qatar on this? What's in it for Ankara?


angles. One is Qatar is an important financial partner to Ankara. Turkey is a resource-poor country, and it needs a lot of foreign direct investment

to promote its growth. Qatar has been, of course, helping Turkey in that regard.

And secondly, both Ankara and Qatar share a strongly pro-Muslim Brotherhood feel in the Middle East in the sense that they both support that

organization, which is now a pariah in the region. So both for financial and political reasons, they are together.

Finally, Turkey has a military base that it was building in Qatar before the controversy came up, so you can also talk about a growing military

security cooperation between the two countries. Explaining the reason, I would say ideological, financial, political, that Turkey is with Qatar in

this split.

VANIER: And this Qatar/Turkey alignment, just quickly, does it actually strengthen Qatar's hand?

CAGAPTAY: I think it does to a certain extent because with the exception of Turkey, Qatar has no allies really. It's surrounded by a variety of

Gulf States from Saudis or the Emirates who are against it. And together with Iran, Turkey has been a lifeline providing supplies, flying in aid and


And also providing air corridor so that Qatari planes, when they take off, because they can't go through Saudi or other air space that surround them,

they can go through Iran and Turkey and elsewhere to the world. So I think that is quite significant for the Qataris, yes.

VANIER: Soner, I want to look at Turkish domestic politics more specifically now. Developments over the last few days have been, first,

that the gay pride march on Sunday was broken up. This, despite the fact - - I mean, let's remind our viewers -- that being gay is authorized in Turkey. It's never been illegal, or not for a long time.

We also learned a few days ago that a theory of evolution will no longer be taught in schools in Turkey. And this is the commonly held scientific

explanation of how the world was created, how it came to be. Mr. Erdogan, once again, seems to be taking his country in a more authoritarian


CAGAPTAY: That's correct. As you noted, pride parade has been going on Turkey for nearly a few decades. It's nothing unusual.

So this is really a deterioration of democratic freedoms because the crackdown on the pride parade yesterday was a crackdown on freedom of

assembly and association. And that's a violation of rights and liberties. What is going on in Turkey is this significant deterioration of democracy

under President Erdogan who has been in charge since 2003, and I think that's fascinating.

As I explained in my book, "The New Sultan," we have seen in recent years a number of cases of transitions from authoritarian regimes to democracies in

places such as Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Latin America. Those transitions --

VANIER: But there seems to be reverse that's happening.

CAGAPTAY: Exactly. And those transitions happened with a bang. There is a dictator who falls. There's a revolution that happens.

The opposite in Turkey. Transition from democracy to authoritarian regime did not happen with a bang. I think democracies die slowly, and that is

what we have seen in Turkey in the last 15 years. It is the death of Turkish democracy with increased crackdowns on rights and liberties.

It's becoming an unrecognizable place, unfortunately, because Turkey has had free and fair elections longer than it has at Spain. It has been

having free and fair elections since 1950s, so it's a very serious historic reversal if this trend continues in Turkey.

VANIER: Yes. I mean, this is baffling, especially if you look at the history of Turkey, which was one of those countries -- you know, all the

work of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was modernizing the country and making it more secular. And now, President Erdogan seems to be doing the opposite.

[15:40:05] CAGAPTAY: Correct. At the same time, the country is very split. Erdogan just won a referendum to become omnipotent executive style

president, but he only won it by a very narrow margin of victory. Forty- nine percent of Turks voted against it. That's about 40 million people.

So, yes, Turkey has a reversal of some of its historic trends, but it's also an extremely polarized place in which Erdogan is loved by one-half of

the country and loathed by the other half.

And the problem is that, if he continues to govern in the undemocratic way that he has been, that half of the country that doesn't like him will not

fold under him. And that only means that Turkey is going to be even more deeply polarized and potentially marching into a civil conflict. We, of

course, don't want to see that, but that is what Erdogan's trajectory is taking Turkey into.

VANIER: Yes. And we're just a year removed from a failed coup d'etat in Turkey. Soner Cagaptay, thank you very much for joining the program.

Thanks a lot.

CAGAPTAY: My pleasure, thank you.

VANIER: Now, returning to the U.K. -- in fact, before we do that, let's go and see if we can get the live pictures of the Indian Prime Minister

Narendra Modi, who's arriving -- there he is being greeted by Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump. So, Narendra Modi, who's arriving at the

White House.

It's the first face-to-face meeting between the Indian Prime Minister and the American President. They have had several phone calls before this, but

they have not met before. And, of course, India, being the biggest democracy in the world, is going to be a key ally of the United States.

Narendra Modi was said to have a good, strong relationship with Barack Obama. It's unclear, unknown, yet what kind of relationship he'll be able

to develop with Donald Trump, but we will be following the outcome and the fallout of that meeting right here on CNN.

So let's return to the U.K., as promised. And the repercussions from the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower are still being felt there.

The manufacturer of the panels that were used as cladding at the tower has halted the sale of the product. Meanwhile, the government says that, so

far, 75 buildings across the country have been found to have the cladding. Every one of them has failed safety tests.

Ian Lee spent the day at one tower block in London where people have been evacuated because of the fire hazard.

IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Cyril, five of those buildings are here in Camden that have that dangerous siding, four of which have been evacuated

to a local leisure center. One of the buildings, they say, as long there's a 24-hour fire marshal keeping an eye on it, they're OK with residents

staying there. But a lot of residents are not very happy with how the government has been handling this.

I have one resident here, Ms. Mittal, to tell me how do you believe the government is handling this right now?

PRIYANSHI MITTAL, CHALCOTS ESTATE RESIDENT: It's really poorly managed because, at first, you make the people homeless, then you create a chaotic

situation, and then you just ask everyone to move in a center and sleep on the floors, at the moment.

And then for two, three days, I kept -- it's taking at least 10 rounds, I took to the center, to find an accommodation for myself. Then I booked

some accommodation for myself on my own. And now, I am doing follow ups to take reimbursement because the government announced that they are going to

reimburse at least for poor family. So I am looking for that option again.

But it is so poorly managed. If they already knew that they have to really evacuate the building, they should have moved people first to a temporary

accommodation and then start doing all this stuff, instead of creating so much chaos and so much urgent and panic situation in the minds of the


There are children as well. There are old age people. It's not just about me. I'm still lucky. I'm living for the last six months as a tenant.

But there are small children. And it's panic for people who are going to school, it's panic for people who are going to work. It's not something

which is managed like this in a country like U.K.

LEE: Are you contemplating, maybe, going back and staying back in this tower complex if they can't find something for you?

MITTAL: Yes, I am planning to move back if I'm not provided accommodation for long-term because I can't keep moving my luggage. I was asked to move

to a hotel for two days and to another for another two days and then so on. So I can't do that.

I have office. I have taken off today just to find an accommodation for myself. I'm just moving in because I have -- there's so much luggage with

us. We packed almost everything with us, and now we have to adjust it everywhere.

LEE: What do you want to see done here? What would you like that the government to do to ease your mind about living in this building?

MITTAL: At least they should have given the accommodation first, then evacuating the building. Move people to some accommodations or housings

where you show them directly to the place, instead of creating panic, and then start your own work. The work has not started but the people have

left their homes, like, everything.

[15:45:00] LEE: What work would you like to see done then? What would you --

MITTAL: This building requires smoke alarms, fire alarms, fire extinguishers. There's nothing like there. And it doesn't have any sign

of ventilation. It's all vacuum type building. It's really suffocation at all the times.

And there was a time when I smelled a smell of gas and everything leaking, but there are no alarms which can really tell you. So if an emergency

happens, there is no disaster management here.

LEE: Thank you very much.

Cyril, it's not just these tower blocks as well. You have hospitals. You have schools. You have hotels. You have other public buildings that have

this sheeting on the sides that are flammable.

Now, the government has issued a directive to government agencies to look and make sure that this material isn't there and if so, remedy it, but this

is going to cost millions of pounds -- Cyril.

VANIER: CNN's Ian Lee reporting from Northern London there. Thank you very much. You're watching THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. Still ahead on the



KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: About 40 locations are all going to be hit at the same time, 4:00 a.m. local time. The target tonight, a dozen

high-ranking gang members.


VANIER: CNN rides along to see how gangs and drug dealers have got involved in human trafficking. A CNN Freedom Project report just ahead.


VANIER: Now, we want to bring you something that really matters to us here at CNN. The CNN Freedom Project is committed to putting the spotlight on

the horrors of modern day slavery and helping to bring it to an end.

This week, we're looking at how multinational gangs and drug traffickers are involved in human trafficking. CNN was there when officers carried out

a raid targeting the MS-13 gang in Los Angeles. Kyung Lah tells us about their unexpected discovery.


LAH (voice-over): Hours before dawn, heavily armed ATF special agents load onto an armored truck. Leaving in a vehicle of war, heading to take down

one of America's most violent street gangs.

CNN was the only television network on this May raid, the largest in Los Angeles history, targeting the core leadership of the violent MS-13 street


LAH (on camera): About 40 locations are all going to be hit at the same time, 4:00 a.m. local time. The target tonight, a dozen high-ranking gang



LAH (voice-over): The target, a storefront. A suspected hub for MS-13, the notorious gang known for this brutal initiation of its members.

[15:50:05] Once in, gang members savagely beat victims with bats and murder with machetes. Mexican drug cartels hire MS-13 members as their muscle.

This is what ATF agents anticipate on the other side of the door. But once inside, agents find something else. Men and women locked in a room, in

deplorable, unsanitary conditions.

DEIRDRE FIKE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: There was a locked room where several individuals were

located. We believe that they may have been victims of human trafficking.

LAH (voice-over): Human trafficking, part of this transnational gang connected to El Salvador. Agents say MS-13 routinely preys on undocumented

immigrants, sometimes forcing young women into prostitution.

Eric Harden is the ATF Special Agent in Charge in Los Angeles.


or another with the human trafficking and how they victimize and dominate females. It's all violent and very brutal.

LAH (voice-over): Law enforcement took the victims in, trying to figure out how they ended up here, an unexpected part of a three-year

investigation. The overall raid netted dozens of suspects. ATF agents call it a success --

PATRICK, AGENT, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES: They're called the worst of the worst, the most violent. And so arresting

those people, it does make the neighborhood safer, at least for a time.

LAH (voice-over): -- in the ongoing battle on Los Angeles streets.

Kyung Lah, CNN, Los Angeles.


VANIER: The U.S. State Department is getting ready to release its annual Trafficking in Persons or TIP report, the first one under the new Trump

administration. Now, we'll be broadcasting that live to find out which countries the U.S. believes are improving in the fight against modern day

slavery and which countries are losing ground. That's going to happen at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday in Washington, 3:30 p.m. in London.

Coming up on the show, a controversial diplomat is returning to Moscow. Sergey Kislyak, you've heard that name before in CNN. He's been at the

center of a firestorm over the Trump campaign's links to Russia.


VANIER: As the U.S. President faces several big tests this week, the Russia investigation is still very much on the radar. Donald Trump was up

bright and early bashing his predecessor who he continues to claim did nothing about intelligence showing that Russia meddled in the U.S.

presidential election.

The real story is that President Obama did nothing after being informed in August about Russian meddling. With four months looking at Russia under a

magnifying glass, they have found zero tapes of people colluding. There is no collusion, no obstruction. I should be given an apology.

And we're learning a controversial Russian diplomat linked to several members of the Trump team is now heading back to Moscow. Matthew Chance

has the details on this. Matthew?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Cyril. Well, the Russian Foreign Ministry continue to insist that there's nothing

untoward about this apparent recall of the Russian Ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak.

[15:54:50] They say that he's simply come to the end of his diplomatic term as the Russian Ambassador to Washington, and this is all part of the

regular rotation of Russian diplomats around various admissions to and from the Russian Foreign Ministry. But, of course, because of Sergey Kislyak's

particular place in American politics at the moment, he has become a deeply controversial figure.


CHANCE (voice-over): He's been at the center of damaging allegations of collusion between Moscow and Trump officials, allegations that have made

this seasoned Russian diplomat a toxic figure in Washington, a cloud of suspicion hanging over his every handshake.

SERGEY KISLYAK, RUSSIA'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: I personally have been working on the United States so long that I know almost


CHANCE (voice-over): Russia's Foreign Ministry denies allegations of improper contact and says Kislyak's recall to Moscow, after nine years as

ambassador, would happen in a planned manner.

According to a spokeswoman, he would enter the history of bilateral relations as a person who did everything possible for their development.

But he's likely to be remembered for the chaos wrought by his undisclosed meetings with members of the Trump team.

In their wake, a U.S. national security adviser has resigned. The U.S. Attorney General stood aside from investigations into Russia. And

President Trump's own son-in-law and adviser named as a point of focus in an FBI investigation.

The recall of Sergey Kislyak to Moscow has not yet been officially confirmed, but his eventual departure may draw a line under a particularly

damaging phase of U.S.-Russian diplomacy.


VANIER: Matthew, whoever replaces Sergey Kislyak has some pretty big shoes to fill in. He's going to come under very, very close scrutiny here in

Washington. What do you know about that person?

CHANCE: Well, there's already some rumors and indeed some reports in the Russian state media about who Mr. Kislyak's replacement may be. It's

Anatoly Antonov whose name won't be known internationally, but he's a former member of the Russian Defense Ministry.

He's in the Foreign Ministry now, of course, but he was one of the generals that stood in front of international media in December of 2015 and launched

a vitriolic attack on President Erdogan of Turkey. It was shortly after a Russian warplane was shot down by Turkish interceptors. And he accused the

Turkish authorities of being involved with business with ISIS.

And so he's something of a terrier. In fact, he's nickname is "The Bull Terrier," and so, you know, it's concerning.

VANIER: Matthew Chance, live from Moscow, thank you very much. You've been watching THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.