Return to Transcripts main page


Massive Cyber Attacks Hit Europe, U.S.; Syrian Conflict; U.S. Health Care Reform; Philippine Siege Raises Fears of ISIS Threat; China Downgraded in Human Trafficking Report; E.U. Slaps Google with Record Fine; Hillsborough Families' Search for Justice; University Sleep Study Searches for 100K Volunteers. Aired 2-3a ET

Aired June 28, 2017 - 02:00   ET



PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): This is CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Ahead this hour, a global cyber attack targeting power grids, banks, airports, even a nuclear power station, hackers demanding ransom to release infected computers.

NEWTON: Donald Trump's red line in Syria. The White House sends a warning to Bashar al-Assad.

VAUSE (voice-over): And it was a defying promise during the election campaign for Donald Trump but repealing and replacing ObamaCare looks like it will have to wait a little longer.

NEWTON (voice-over): Hello and thanks for joining us. I'm Paula Newton.

VAUSE (voice-over): I'm John Vause. Thanks for being with us. We're now into the third hour of NEWSROOM L.A.


NEWTON: A massive cyber attack targeting some of the world's largest companies is renewing questions about global I.T. security. Russia and the Ukraine were the first to report problems. But the attack spread to other countries in Europe and Asia. Companies in the U.S. were also affected.

VAUSE: The hackers used a virus called ransomware. It takes control of infected computers, threatening to delete everything unless a ransom is paid. CNN contributor Jill Dougherty live again this hour in Moscow.

So, Jill, is there any idea of the extent of the cyber attack in Ukraine and Russia?

Because Ukraine at this stage seems to be the worst affected by this, followed by Russia.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, one company is called Group ID, a cyber security company, says at least 80 companies in Russia and Ukraine were affected. It's really very major. You've been mentioning the problem in Chernobyl, the former atomic reactor site, and they had to go on to manual monitoring of radiation. It's kind of a dramatic moment.

And then there were other attacks that spread primarily into energy, telecommunications, banking, things like that. Now initially there was a political gloss to this because obviously Ukraine and Russia are not getting along very well. And the Ukrainians began fingering the Russians.

But then it turned out that companies here in Russia have been affected. Rosneft, one of the biggest energy in this part of the world, certainly in Russia, was affected and other organizations, banks, etc. As you pointed out it's spreading around the world and the one thing that doesn't seem to be very clear is why.

What is the ultimate purpose?

Is there one purpose?

Is it economic, to shake people down and get money?

Is it political, perhaps to destabilize countries?

That's really not known at this point.

VAUSE: And Jill, just on the issue of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, it's still an active plant in some regard although there is the concern obviously about the radioactivity there from the meltdown.

How serious is the situation there?

Because clearly people hear Chernobyl, computer problems and it raises a lot of concerns.

DOUGHERTY: Yes, apparently, well, they do have it under control but it has to be manually controlled. It's just an indication of how very serious infrastructure can be affected.

And also speaking of Ukraine, it affected so many different things. You had the metro not working properly. You had banks; government certainly was affected very strongly by this. And here in Russia, everything from -- I was reading a candy company as well could be affected.

So as the investigations and the United States now is beginning an investigation to find out why it happened and who is behind this, it may be very difficult to pin that down. But it's very important to figure out.

Again, is it economic?

Is it political?

Or is it just some of these people in the Dark Web, who buy this stuff, these types of viruses, and can spread them for many different reasons?

VAUSE: The why often leads to the who.

Jill, thank you, Jill Dougherty live for us in Moscow. Appreciate it.

And joining us here in Los Angeles, Robert Herjavec, the founder and CEO of --


VAUSE: -- Herjavec Group, a global I.T. security firm and an expert in all things ransomware, I guess, which is why you're here. Good to have you.

Petya, we're told like WannaCry, which was the malware or --


VAUSE: -- which we used -- which they used back in May. It basically rewrites the MBR, the master boot record. But there's some debate over whether or not Petya is actually more effective than WannaCry.

What's your take?

ROBERT HERJAVEC, FOUNDER AND CEO, HERJAVEC GROUP: Well, actually, Petya wasn't that effective as a ransomware because it used email as a transport mechanism for people to pay. But the email hosting company in the Ukraine shut them down. So even if you wanted to pay the $300, you couldn't.

We really don't think it was ransomware. We think it was more targeted at infrastructure and no one's really sure about that. But what's interesting is it is very much like WannaCry and it comes from the same malware called External Blue, which was actually developed by the NSA. So believe it or not it was the American government --


VAUSE: -- the information they got from the hack, that huge hack that --


HERJAVEC: -- the NSA. It was a group called the Shadow Group that actually broke into the NSA, took the virus and tried to sell it initially but couldn't and then just released it to the public.

NEWTON: OK. But there was a patch for that in April. We had companies today, even like Maersk (ph), confirming -- the big shipping conglomerate, confirming they were attacked today.


They've all put in the patch, surely.

HERJAVEC: Sixty percent of the attack that we know right now, we've been working on this all day with our threat group, what we know right now is that 60 percent of the attack was in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian government's confirmed that; 30 percent was in Russia. And there was some companies affected in North America, especially hospitals.

And you're right. There was a patch that was actually released a year ago and there was a new patch released in March of this year.

What's interesting about Petya, though, is it's different than WannaCry in the sense that if you have a single system that wasn't patched, it will bring down your entire network again.

NEWTON: One little tiny flaw?

HERJAVEC: One little server somewhere in your network and it -- because it uses something different than WannaCry, it uses Windows Messenger, which is a control module that you distribute and it can bring your whole network down.

VAUSE: (INAUDIBLE) talking about Ukraine, Ukraine's deputy prime minister tweeted out a shot, a screenshot of his actual -- of his computer, which was infected. And it's interesting because 60 percent of the computers -- affected, at least initially, were in Ukraine, 30 percent were in Russia.

The initial suspicion in Ukraine was this was some kind of Russian cyber attack. But that hasn't been proved. So the question is --


HERJAVEC: Well, the other interesting point to that, to your question, is -- you know why it's called Petya, it's actually a town near Russia, which was made famous -- it's also called GoldenEye because of the James bond movie. So there was this whole suspicion that it was the Russian hacking group doing it.

VAUSE: Well, then, why Ukraine?

HERJAVEC: Who knows?

Infrastructure, utilities were -- heard a lot of utilities were brought down. A lot of this stuff you don't know the effect until later on. We suspect that it wasn't actually ransomware, that there was a larger element to it.

NEWTON: And, Robert, I want to get to that point.

What is the danger if these are what they call probing attacks?

So they've had a huge effect but everyone will get together now, discuss how best to patch this. It'll get solved. Many people are saying within 24 hours. Great.

What is the danger here?

What could they be probing for? HERJAVEC: Yes, the average company that has a breach has been infected for about six and half months before they realize that there's been a breach. So the danger in some of these things is they're probing for information, utility information, government information, financial information, cyber terrorism, espionage.

Let's not forget that this tool was originally invented by the NSA for cyber espionage.

NEWTON: Which worked quite effectively in Iran.

HERJAVEC: Which worked very well in Iran. And so it could be the same effect. But we don't know at this point.

VAUSE: There does seem to be a big favor long beat floor (ph) with this program. When a victim's computer is infected, it asks you to send a bitcoin payment. But everyone's sending it to the same address, apparently. So the people who are carrying out this attack don't know who's paid and who hasn't.

HERJAVEC: Well, the other moral dilemma in all of this is that the email hosting -- typically when you want to roll out a big ransomware attack, you don't want people to pay you by email. You want them to go somewhere else and pay you.

When you use e-mail, the hosting company can shut you down, which is what happened here. So --

VAUSE: They got about seven grand, I think, right?

HERJAVEC: Yes, they only got $7,000.

You know, we should never underestimate how good the hackers are. When you roll out an attack like this, it's very difficult to contain it. So it could be as simple as they rolled it out, it became bigger than they thought, because it's a massive attack. So we don't really know at this point.

VAUSE: So very quickly, is this the new normal, cyber insecurity?

HERJAVEC: Yes, this is definitely the new normal. You've got to constantly have vigilance and look at your systems. And (INAUDIBLE) hunting group knew about this 24 hours ago. People have to be watching their systems and you have to be patching.

VAUSE: Right.

NEWTON: Expect to hear more.


NEWTON: Robert, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

VAUSE: -- good to see you. Thanks for coming in.

NEWTON: A Venezuelan police pilot has seized a helicopter and joined the country's opposition. President Nicolas Maduro says an armed group flew over the supreme court and cut off his launching and attack with guns and grenades.

VAUSE: The president is known with hurt (ph), the pilot of the helicopter has demanded Mr. Maduro step down, saying he speaks for a coalition of military police and civil officials.

NEWTON: The White House is warning Syria's president will pay a heavy price if the regime carries out another chemical attack. Bashar al- Assad toured a Russian airbase in Syria Tuesday.

VAUSE: The Pentagon says the warning is based on satellite images indicating activity and an airfield where chemical weapons are believed to be stored.

NEWTON: Earlier I spoke with CNN military analyst, Lt. Col. Rick Francona and Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, she's a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Col. Francona, I want to go first to you. The story sounds familiar because it is very familiar. The United States struck that same base in April.

Why can they not prevent it?

They said it was a limited strike but at the time the Trump administration thought it had had an effect.

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That was supposed to be a punitive strike, a message to the Assad regime not to do this again. It was supposed to be a deterrent.

If in fact the Syrians are going to do this again, that deterrence has failed. The problem with establishing these red lines, which is what that was, is, once you draw them, you have to enforce them. Once we've enforced it once, now we're boxed in. We have to enforce it again.

If the Syrians are foolish enough to use chemical weapons again, we have to respond. And it's this constant ratcheting up of this escalation that leads you closer to an all-out confrontation. It draws us further in and puts us that much closer to a direct confrontation with the Russians.

NEWTON: Now, Gayle, you're arguing it's not as dire as all that.

But what effect do you think it will have, this statement from the White House?

Many people are saying are they telegraphing what they're going to do?

My point is, no, to give the White House some credit, they might just be wanting to avoid innocent civilians from getting hurt.

GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, right, and as Col. Francona said, this was aimed at really sending a message and trying to keep them from doing something that the U.S. administration clearly thought was imminent.

And so what we've been arguing is that the real argument that the U.S. and Russia have had is that neither side wants to enter into a wider war. The U.S. is really focused on ISIS and is focused on Raqqa and the campaign to retake Raqqa and it is not excited or eager to enter or slip or descend into a conflict with Russia.

And so the deconfliction line, which has had a lot of conversation around it, is very much in use, despite some discussions that maybe recent acts have kept it from being active.

And the truth is that neither side, neither the U.S. nor Russia, wants to enter into this wider war.

And the bigger question is, can Russia control the Assad regime?

And I don't think we know the answer to that.

NEWTON: No, and Russia's been fairly blunt; if you take them at their face value, in saying, no, we cannot control the Assad regime.

Col. Francona, what is the danger here, though?

As you said, this is possibly that red line the Trump administration is saying you can't step over.

Boy, where have we heard that before?

And even if it is effective, what is the danger on the ground?

As Gayle points out, it is becoming more complicated on the ground there as the fight against ISIS continues in Syria.

FRANCONA: Yes, and that's where we are now and it's going to get even worse. Once Raqqa falls and everybody's focused on Eastern Syria, the Syrians are in a race to get to Deir ez-Zor there; the Kurdish forces are going to take Raqqa and they're going to head down to the same area, fighting ISIS. And we're going to be in closer contact.

U.S.-backed forces and Russian-backed forces are going to be closer together. So this is not going to mitigate. It's going to get worse.

But back to the use of chemical weapons, I think that, although President Trump has said he doesn't want to telegraph his intentions, this was merely an attempt at deterrence. And we all hope it works. The Russians -- and Gayle is absolutely right. We don't know just how much effect they have on the Syrians. We used to think it was --


NEWTON: We've lost Col. Francona for a minute. We'll try and get him back.

Gayle, if you could come back in and just pick up where Col. Francona left off there, we don't know what the impact is although Russia was quite strident when the attack happened, saying you have no proof that this is even happening.

At what point do we risk that escalation between Russia and the United States?

LEMMON: I think what Col. Francona was saying was that there was this idea for a very long time that Russia was controlling the Assad regime, on whose side it was all in in the Syrian conflict.


LEMMON: But really recently there has been more and more of a question mark about that and there is a very professional conversation going on between the Russian military and the U.S. military in Syria.

And there is a very uneasy but definitely a coexistence at the moment on a crowded battlefield. Both sides would like to keep that. Whether they're able to keep that going I think is the question of the hour as this gets increasingly complicated because it's not clear that Iran and the Iranian-backed militias also has an interest in keeping the two sides from going into conflict directly with one another.

And it's also not clear how the Syrian regime will allow Russia to control the moves that it makes going forward.

NEWTON: And you definitely see a very shrewd dance by all parties right now when it comes to the post-game.

Col. Francona, I hope we have you back there to really talk about what is the post-game in Syria. Neither Russia nor the United States is good at that, at what happens after. And all you have to do is look at places like Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq and you have got all the proof that you need.

Are there any signs that Trump administration knows what they're dealing with, especially when they put that red line out there?

FRANCONA: I think the problem is we don't have a coherent Syrian policy articulated in this administration. During the Obama administration, we know what the policy was; it was twofold: it was the removal of Bashar al-Assad and the defeat of ISIS.

When President Trump came into office, he said he was more interested in defeating ISIS and not interested in removing dictators in the Middle East, not interested in the Syrian civil war. We need to know what exactly what his policy is and what the policy is toward the Bashar al-Assad government.

Are we going to hope that we can have some sort of diplomatic solution with the Russians for a future of Syria?

Or are we going to work on the sidelines to remove Bashar al-Assad?

Once we know that, then we can figure out where we're going.

NEWTON: Col. Francona, Gayle, thanks so much. Appreciate it. VAUSE: OK. We'll take a short break. When we come back, repeal delayed. U.S. Senate Republicans scrambling to save their health care bill in what looks to be a dramatic setback for President Donald Trump.

NEWTON: And the U.S. calls China among the worst offenders for human trafficking. We hear what China has to say in a few moments.



VAUSE: Well, U.S. Senate Republicans and President Donald Trump are scrambling to save their health care bill. Senate leaders have now delayed a vote on that bill until after the July 4th recess.

NEWTON: This is what happens. It delays a seven-year Republican promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare and delays it still further. Now the Senate plan has zero support from Democrats. An increasing number of Republicans oppose it as well.

VAUSE: After the delay, all 52 Republican senators were bused to the White House for a meeting with President Trump.

NEWTON: The Senate leadership wants to secure a deal, though, still by the end of the week.



SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: I think the meeting was very helpful. The one thing I would say is that I think everybody around the table is interested in getting to yes, interested in getting an outcome because we know the status quo is simply unacceptable, unsustainable and no action is just not an option.


NEWTON: Joining us now Los Angeles Democratic mayoral candidate, Mitchell Schwartz and CNN political commentator and talk show host, John Phillips.

VAUSE: Also with us the assistant managing editor for politics at the "Los Angeles Times," Christina Bellantoni.

It's been a while, Christina. Thank you for coming back. Good to see you.

OK, John, just starting with you. The original strategy in the Senate seemed to be get it done, get it done quickly, hold a vote, hope no one sees what's actually in it and then move on.

So what now?

Delay is better than defeat? JOHN PHILLIPS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think you have to get it done right. We already have a bill that was passed in secret and it doesn't work. We don't want to repeat that twice.

And frankly, right now, we're sitting in a situation where Rand Paul and Ted Cruz hold all the cards. They can't really lose any votes. They have very little room for error. They have 52 seats. They need every single one of those. They can lose two of them.

And Mitch McConnell's a guy who's been around the block a while. He knows how to get this stuff through. I know Nancy Pelosi is a self- described master legislator but Mitch McConnell is one, too. And right now, the White House has all the pressure in the world on these people; Mitch McConnell's putting pressure on them.

And I'd rather see a bill come after the 4th of July than to have a flawed one come before.

NEWTON: That's if you get to even that point because they're very far apart. Donald Trump tweeting again today, saying with zero Democrats to help in a failed, expensive, dangerous ObamaCare is the Dems' legacy. The Republican senators are working hard.

Christina, how hard do these guys have to work though, guys and gals, considering if I go through conservative media, as I have been for the last few days, any red state, there's no one saying anything positive about this bill. I mean, that is hyperbole. But come on, it's not a popular bill right now with anybody.

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": Sure, and you've got the competing issues of senators like Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, for example, who isn't going to vote for something that defunds Planned Parenthood.

And then the Ted Cruz of Texas issue worries (ph) says it's not a conservative enough measure. So they're in a really difficult position and having an extra week where they go home to face the voters may not help. We've seen a lot of activity at town halls over the course of this year.

And I'll just remind people that, when they passed ObamaCare, it took many months and, in fact, between the House and Senate passage, you had an entire special election with Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts that upended the math and those calculations for the Democrats in the Senate.

And so you could have something similar here, a very long delay, and the bill could change dramatically before it sees a final form before it reaches President Trump's desk.

And don't forget, Mitch McConnell has a little bit of money to play with in this bill, where he can dole out some kickbacks to some of these senators that are looking for extra money for certain programs within health care to be able to say that they've taken something home to their constituents, that they've had a victory.

VAUSE: Some McConnell bucks to throw around.

You mentioned, Christina, the town halls and the blowback. Here's a look at what some of the Republicans have been facing. Take a look at some of the town halls of late.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop trying to repeal the ACA just because it has the name Obama on it.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying that you're voting for this bill because it represents your constituents?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because I believe that in the best interest of the people (INAUDIBLE) we've been clear on all (INAUDIBLE) on this and where we're going.



VAUSE: OK. So Mitchell, to you. Voters out there in flyover country, they probably don't care about the Russia investigation, they probably don't care about a conflict of interest with the president, the emoluments clause in the Constitution. But they do care about health care.

MITCHELL SCHWARTZ, LAX DEMOCRATIC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: And what the Republicans are doing. Let's take a step back for a second. It's a defeat for them temporarily but it's a victory for the American people.

Why are they rushing this through?

The Democrats under Bill Clinton had Democratic control of the Congress in '93, '94; they took almost two years to try to get a health care bill. It didn't even make it to Congress.

Again, Obama administration took almost two years to get a good health care plan bill passed.

What is the rush?

You're dealing with one-seventh of the national economy and the Senate, under Mitch McConnell, has been debating this in private. We need to have an open airing of all these issues. What they're going to suffer from --


SCHWARTZ: -- and trying to get this done so quickly is they want to stop the revolt before people realize that 20 million-plus people are going to be thrown off of insurance --


SCHWARTZ: -- out of insurance.

NEWTON: And it's interesting, John, because inside of that bill, you know, you've seen then, there are those stopgap measures that clear them of a lot of blame during crucial elections in 2018, to make sure the full effects aren't seen.

Having said that, if the bill doesn't pass or we just can't do it, as Mitchell's saying, can't Trump just say this is a beltway failure?

I tried and I failed. I tried to bring these people together. He doesn't have much to lose here, if you ask me.

PHILLIPS: I think you've got to go back and start negotiating again. They're not quite at the Bill Cosby jury level of being deadlocked here. So I think there's a lot of room to play with this, I think there's a lot of changes that could be made.

And I think the electoral comment that you made is a good one. Look at how Republicans said run on ObamaCare and look at the results. They ran on in 2010. They won massive wins. They ran on it again in 2014. They won massively.

In the state of Montana, this last time, we saw health care is the issue that the Democrats raised and they lost that race. And we saw in red states all over the country these angry town halls, where the new tidal wave is coming and these Republicans are going to get swept out of office. They've had five elections that were contested since the presidential election; the Republicans have won all five.


SCHWARTZ: And up until 2010, Democrats I think lost seven in a row --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- the Republicans lost seven in a row and then they won the presidency.


VAUSE: -- get to this new Pew survey for -- about global views of the United States around the world, in particular of Donald Trump. Pew went out and surveyed 37 countries. More people believe Russia's Vladimir Putin will do the right thing for world affairs that Donald Trump. Angela Merkel comes in at number one. Actually, the Chinese president came in at number two. We just didn't put him in there.

But, Christina, many Trump voters look at him and say, good, that's exactly what we voted him in for.

BELLANTONI: Well, look at his decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. And he even said in the Rose Garden that day, I'm not here to represent Paris. I'm here to represent Pittsburgh. And Pittsburgh said we actually want to look at these reforms to making sure that we have fewer carbon emissions than we did before.

But he recognizes that this is something that his constituents aren't as interested in the global stage. He ran against Obama's policy from the beginning, before he even announced he was running for president. He was out on FOX News, criticizing the president's military decisions, his diplomatic decisions, that sort of thing.

But it's also trade accords that he's shaking up; his foreign policy team that he's put in place that he's kind of sidelining and taking a strong stance.

You mentioned the Syria situation. His State Department wasn't as clued in on that statement that they issue as they should have been or as traditional presidents have informed State Departments. So this isn't someone who is coming to any of the norms. So, of course, he's going to be viewed very differently abroad.

VAUSE: OK, Mitchell --


SCHWARTZ: At the end of the day, the Americans want their president to be the leader of the free world. That means staying strong with your allies, like NATO, like even countries like Australia that he picks on.

And so I think that people don't want the coddling of dictators that Trump seems to feel comfortable with, be it Philippines, be it Putin. And while Americans don't often vote on foreign affairs, they do want their president to be the leader of the free world. And Trump certainly doesn't want to take that role on.

VAUSE: Ten seconds, John.

PHILLIPS: Donald Trump ran on the platform of making America great again, not making Pakistan great again.

VAUSE: OK, well, he's not making Pakistan great again. We'll find out -- the jury's still out on America. We'll find out soon, though.

John Mitchell and Christina, thanks so much.

NEWTON: Tech giant Google gets slapped with a hefty fine. Why the European Union says some of the company's search engines are actually illegal.

VAUSE: Even though (INAUDIBLE) as well. Plus (INAUDIBLE) university wants to make sure you're getting enough rest.

Are you getting enough rest?

Because I know --

NEWTON: Of course I am. VAUSE: How you can join the world's largest sleep study. That's coming up.

NEWTON: I don't need --



VAUSE, (voice-over): Welcome back everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.

NEWTON (voice-over): And I'm Paula Newton with the headlines this hour.


NEWTON: Now for weeks the Philippine military has struggled to free a southern city from ISIS militants. Their hold on Marawi is raising concern that those extremists could be a threat to the entire region. CNN's Ivan Watson joins us from Hong Kong.

The president of the Philippines has said for weeks now that they are an extreme threat and that's why he's dealing with them so severely. There seems to have been more of a recognition that it is taking quite a toll on that region.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And on the military as well, which has lost at least 71 troops over the course of more than a month of fighting, hundreds of thousands of people displaced.

And although the president, Rodrigo Duterte, has vowed to bring peace to this turbulent island of Mindanao, where he has imposed martial law since this began, there are also growing concerns that the ISIS threat in the Philippines could extend beyond borders.


WATSON (voice-over): This was the scene when ISIS militants stormed the city of Marawi in the Philippines on May 23rd, triggering the longest and deadliest urban battle the Philippine military has fought in decades and marking the appearance of a tenacious enemy with international ambitions.

SIDNEY JONES, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT: The aim of taking over territory was to have the credentials to announce the establishment of a formal province of Islamic State in Southeast Asia.

WATSON: Counterterrorism experts say ISIS in the Philippines is actually a coalition of local Islamist insurgent groups.

JONES: What's been so extraordinary about this coalition is that it bridges ethnic and regional ties in a way that really hasn't happened in the Philippines before. WATSON: These are the top commanders of ISIS in the Philippines. They filmed themselves planning their assault on Marawi in this video, later captured and distributed by the Philippine military.

Among the leaders, Abdullah and Omar Maute, two brothers from Marawi, who spent time living in the Middle East. Omar Maute also taught English and preached sermons at this mosque and Islamic school in Indonesia. Somewhere along the way he also became a violent extremist.



BANLAOI: It is also inherently regional because they share fighters, they share skills, they share ideas. And they share human resources.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was very easy for us.

WATSON: This man is a former member of the one of the Philippines' most notorious Jihadi groups. In this exclusive interview with CNN, he says extremists have had decades to develop sophisticated international smuggling networks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They can easily transport firearms and money, very easily.

WATSON: Between which countries?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Malaysia and the Philippines, through the southern back door.

WATSON (voice-over): The back door, the islands between the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, which smugglers navigate using small boats. Some of the foreign fighters battling in Marawi may have actually island-hopped their way here.

Recently, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia announced plans for joint counterterror navy patrols and information sharing.


WATSON (voice-over): The month-long battle in Marawi, an international wakeup call to the terror threat growing in Southeast Asia.


WATSON: And, Paula, here's the thing: while we're starting to see this trilateral cooperation between the countries that share this archipelago of islands against terrorism and against piracy, the militants themselves have had decades to develop these sophisticated networks for smuggling. So the governments are playing catch-up here -- Paula. NEWTON: Yes, as they have been for several months now. And thanks for continuing to follow the story. Appreciate it.

VAUSE: The U.S. State Department has ranked China among the worst offenders for human trafficking. (INAUDIBLE) trafficking in person reports says forced labor, forced begging and sex trafficking are the reasons for this decision. CNN's Lynda Kinkade reports from Washington.


LYNDA KINKADE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This year the report ranked 187 countries and territories over how effective their governments are at tackling human trafficking. The U.S. declared China among the worst offenders. It was downgraded to tier 3 alongside the likes of Iran, North Korea and Syria, this is despite seemingly warm relations between President Trump and President Xi of China.

The U.S. State Department report accused China of failing to curb state-sponsored forced labor. It concluded that China has failed to meet the minimum standards for fighting human trafficking.

The U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson had this to say.

REX TILLERSON, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: China was downgraded to tier 3 status in this year's report, in part because it has not taken serious steps to end its own complicity in trafficking, including forced laborers from North Korea that are located in China.

American consumers and businesses must also recognize they may have an unwitting connection to human trafficking. Supply chains creating many products that Americans enjoy may be utilizing forced labor.

KINKADE: China called the remarks in this report "irresponsible," saying it's determined to end human trafficking.

Ivanka Trump was also at the event today, the first daughter and presidential adviser said this issue is a key policy concern for her. Earlier this year she held a listening session at the White House with President Trump and key advocates and she also went to Rome on the president's first foreign trip and met with human trafficking survivors.

This was what she had to say about why it is personal for her.

IVANKA TRUMP, TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: As a mother, this is much more than a policy priority, it is a clarion call to action in defense of the vulnerable, the abused and the exploited.

KINKADE: A new State Department initiative was also unveiled today, the program to end modern-day slavery. Already $50 million has been allocated and they're hoping to raise $1.5 billion to increase funding for prosecution, prevention and protection -- Linda Kinkade, CNN, Washington.


VAUSE: We'll take a short break. When we come back, Google has been fined billions of dollars for violating E.U. competition and rules. We'll have the tech giant's response to what was a record-breaking fine in just a moment.





NEWTON: Google has been slapped with a record-breaking fine from the European Union for allegedly violating antitrust laws.

VAUSE: At issue is Google's search results and whether the tech giant unfairly favors its own services over competitors. CNN's Isa Soares has details.


MARGRETHE VESTAGER, EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR COMPETITION: What Google has done is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules.

ISA SOARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This little box is giving Google a huge headache. It's the root of a $2.7 billion fine from the European Union, by far the largest ever of its kind.


SOARES (voice-over): Search for almost everything you can buy online and right at the top, Google will first offer you a box with a selection of that product.

Say, cheese: if you go further and click on it, Google directs you to its own Google shopping page. The European Commission argues that by promoting its own business and banishing other such websites to around the fourth page of search results, what Google is doing is really denying anyone else a chance to compete and denying consumers with what it calls a genuine choice.

While in a statement to CNN, Google's general counsel said the company respectfully disagreed.

"When you use Google to search for products, we try to give you what you are looking for," it says.

"Our ability to do that well isn't favoring ourselves or any particular site or seller. It's the result of hard work and constant innovation, based on user feedback."

Foundem (ph) is a shopping site based in the U.K. and the lead complainant against Google. CEO Schiavone Raff (ph) says her business has been devastated by Google and it's just the tip of the global iceberg.

SHIVONNE RAFF (PH), CEO, FOUNDEM (PH): The fact is that Google is the gateway to the Internet. It steers traffic and revenues through the global digital economy and when it starts taking its incredibly dominant position in Search and leveling into an adjacent markets, such as comparison shopping, travel and local search, it can steer an enormous amount of the traffic and revenue of those sectors into its own service and away from competitors.

SOARES (voice-over): The woman at the center of this is Margrethe Vestager, the E.U.'s competition commissioner and this is just one of three cases she's opened into Google and after demanding Apple pay $14.5 billion in back taxes last year, she's getting a reputation for going after America's tech giants.

VESTIGER (through translator): Our courts will hear nothing about bias. We want the fact of the case, evidence, the case law. Our work has to stand up in court.

SOARES (voice-over): For Google and its nearly $100 billion in cash, the fine is likely just a drop in the bucket. The trouble is that this ruling requires Google to change its behavior and stop prioritizing results within 90 days. It's a precedent that could have far-ranging and long-lasting implications.

After all, this is their bread and butter. This is their business model and Google will now have to do a lot of its own searching -- Isa Soares, CNN, London.


VAUSE: OK. We'll change gears here now.

Wednesday marks another milestone for the families of the victims of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in England; 96 football fans were killed in the tragedy which took place at an FA Cup semifinal match in the city of Sheffield back in 1989.

NEWTON: Last April an inquest found those --


NEWTON: -- fans were unlawfully killed and police errors contributed to a very dangerous situation. British authorities are expected to announce whether individuals or organizations will face criminal charges over the disaster.

VAUSE: It's likely to be another emotional day for campaigners on a 28-year-long mission to find the truth. Here's CNN's Don Riddell.



DON RIDDELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was their football ritual, the one thing their family always did together.

TREVOR HICKS, HILLSBOROUGH SURVIVOR: It was a beautiful spring morning. We traveled up. We had our picnic lunch with us.

JENNI HICKS, HILLSBOROUGH SURVIVOR: The girls were chatting in the back about who they thought were going to win.

RIDDELL (voice-over): Trevor and Jenni Hicks and their teenage daughters, Sarah and Vicki, were passionate supporters of the Liverpool football team, until one day in 1989. The Hicks family had tickets to the FA cup semifinal between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. The Hillsborough Stadium was a neutral venue in Sheffield.

JENNI HICKS: We had three tickets for the standing and one for the seating. And I desperately wanted to stand with the girls.

But as it turned out, it was the girls who said, "No, Mum, you're too little, you won't be able to see."

RIDDELL (voice-over): Jenni went to her seat while Trevor and the girls ended up on the terrace but something was wrong. The fans who were standing behind the goal were packed in too tight; along with hundreds of other Liverpool supporters, Sarah and Vicki were being crushed. The game was stopped after just six minutes and subsequently abandoned.

JENNI HICKS: I went to the Leppings Lane tobacconist to wait for Sarah and Vicki and Trevor coming out. It was just chaotic, really. And then more and more fans came out. And then finally nobody came.

RIDDELL (voice-over): Jenni's worst fears were being realized. What she didn't yet know was that her husband had been trying desperately to save their daughters' lives.

TREVOR HICKS: The people who were climbing over the fence were literally just collapsing on the pitch as soon as they got there, struggling for breath.

I found Sarah and Vicki almost side by side. And we started doing mouth-to- mouth resuscitation, cleared the airways and all this type of thing. Obviously everybody was -- it was total chaos.

RIDDELL (voice-over): Trevor's efforts were in vain. And it was many hours before he and Jenni were reunited and she learned that both their girls were gone.

Well, we arrived, it was the early hours of Sunday morning. And the first thing I did when we went into the hall, I went upstairs to look in the girls' bedrooms to see if they were there. None of this seems to make sense but it did to me at the time.

RIDDELL (voice-over): But this was only half the story. Even as the disaster was still unfolding, the police blamed what they called drunk, ticketless fans, who'd arrived late at the stadium for causing the crush and the deaths of 96 fans.

At the point of identification back in Sheffield, Trevor, Jenni and everyone else had been interrogated. Victims became suspects.

TREVOR HICKS: They took blood alcohol levels from all of the victims, including the children. And it was obviously they were trying to start and build up the story then, even within hours of drunken fans kicking gates down, which clearly wasn't the case.

RIDDELL (voice-over): In fact, the stadium was old and decrepit and the police themselves had lost control. Their fateful decision to open a large exit gate, allowing 2,000 supporters to stream into the packed area behind the goal, proved fatal for many.

The families of the 96 victims assumed that the truth would emerge in an inquest two years later but the deaths were ruled accidental.

Trevor has devoted much of his life since, 27 years, to uncovering the truth.

TREVOR HICKS: It would have been an awful lot easier if responsibility had been faced up. And instead of people accepting their responsibility for the disaster, as we all know now, you know, an absolute, you know, full-blown, smear campaign, dirty tricks campaign, call it what you like, was waged on the families.

RIDDELL (voice-over): Against the police and the establishment, against all the odds, the Hillsborough families never gave up their fight.

Almost three decades after the fact, it took an inquest more than two years to pronounce what they'd always known: the fans weren't to blame. But it's a hollow victory.

TREVOR HICKS: One of the biggest things that I see is the waste. They were good kids and I've never had the opportunity to see the time and the effort we put into them come to fruition. And obviously that can never change.

But that's one of the things I have great difficulty in dealing with, because you can't wind the clock back.

RIDDELL (voice-over): Don Riddell, CNN.




VAUSE: These days we know, if you don't snooze, you lose. Not enough sleep can increase the risk of stroke or cancer. It can decrease fertility. The list goes on. Every day there seems to be a new study with a headline like this.

"Sleep Deprivation is Killing You and Making You Fat in the Process."

Not enough sleep seems to be the one problem so many of us share, regardless of position, income or country. Here's Britain's Prince Andrew nodding off during a speech by China's

president. Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe and his finance minister, catching a little shuteye during parliamentary question time.

Even Pope Benedict, no stranger to a public power nap.

So just how much sleep is enough?

Researchers at a university in Canada are hoping to answer that question and they're looking for 100,000 volunteers for the world's biggest, most definitive study on sleep.

Adrian Owen is a neuroscientist at the Brain and Mind Institute in London (ph), Ontario, and is leading that study. He joins us now.

So Professor, you've already got a lot of volunteers sign up online so you're getting a few results back right now about the impact a lack of sleep actually has on brain function.

So what are you finding out in terms of memory and decision-making, that kind of thing?

DR. ADRIAN OWEN, BRAIN AND MIND INSTITUTE: Well, it's little early to actually come up with any conclusions there. We have 25,000 people that have signed up in the last few hours. So we're doing very well.

People are reporting how much sleep they're getting and they're doing some cognitive tests online, tests of memory, concentration, decision- making, problem solving, these sorts of things.

And as soon as we get even bigger numbers than that, we're going to start to pull the data apart and find out just how much sleep does anybody need to maintain normal daily function.

VAUSE: I guess the answer to that question, it really does depend on the person.

But was reading that you believe that impairment caused by a lack of sleep is actually so serious that there is need for some kind of regulation when it comes to certain types of jobs?

OWEN: Oh, it's extremely serious. We're all getting less and less sleep just due to the demands of modern living. People are working longer hours. They're going into work earlier but they're not going to bed earlier.

We know that people are suffering and they're suffering from deficits that are affecting their performance. And what's interesting about it is that it's never really been carefully studied.

And of course now we can do it on a massive basis because we have the Internet. People can lie in their beds and do the tests if they want. And they can log in and we can find out how impaired they actually are.

VAUSE: Yes, they log in while they're in bed, when they should be sleeping, but I'll let that go.

What about napping?

Are you looking at napping?

Because a lot of people nap. I've heard both positive and negative reports about the benefits of napping.

OWEN: Well, I think napping is a good thing. There was a recent research study that showed that napping during day for very short periods, if it's a high-quality nap, then actually it's good for you.

But we're really interested in the normal day and night cycle. How much sleep people need at night to function in order for them to function normally the following day.

We know from research already that 18 hours without sleep will seriously impair your cognitive function to a level that is not unlike being intoxicated. And 18 hours is not that long. There are plenty of people that get up early on a Friday morning, work a whole day, go out on Friday night and, before long, they have been up for 18 hours.


OWEN: But do they stop doing the things they wouldn't do if they had been drinking?

VAUSE: OK, well, if anybody wants to volunteer for the study, it's pretty simple. The website is

And so once they sign up, what happens next?

OWEN: So they ask a few questions because we want to know a little bit about people. It's completely anonymous but we need to know about your sleeping habits and whether you're taking any drugs that might affect your sleep. Then you're going to some of our tests. And these are a lot of fun. They're very short. They're set up like games. They'll test things like memory, decision-making, planning and problem solving.

And then you report how much sleep you get. And what we're going to do is we're going to gather the information from tens of thousands of people and give it back to each individual. So you'll see how your sleeping patterns affected your brain function but also how you relate to everybody else who has participated.

VAUSE: So why do you need 100,00 volunteers for this?

What will that tell you that another study with a much smaller sample wouldn't tell you?

OWEN: That's a great question. The answer is because people are tremendously variable. You know, there are famous examples of presidents and prime ministers that have claimed to have run countries on four hours of sleep.

Well, could they really do it effectively?

Often people almost treat it as a matter of pride, how they can get by with little sleep. On the other hand, some of us need 8-10 hours of sleep. And really to understand exactly how much sleep an individual needs and what brain process is specifically affected by lack of sleep, we need really large numbers of people.

And the great thing is just the sort of thing we can only do now, that we have so widespread access to the Internet.

VAUSE: Well, I encourage everyone to sign up. I think it's a great idea. I have yet to have a good night sleep in about the last 10 years.

Professor, I look forward to the results. Good to speak with you.

OWEN: Thanks very much. Thanks for having me on.

VAUSE: So apparently President Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Donald Trump only needed or need four hours of sleep at night.

Donald Trump said, why would you spend more time in bed?

NEWTON: They lie. They needed much more sleep than that. Look at what Barack Obama looked like after eight years in office. Had he been sleeping a little more...

VAUSE: What about you, how many hours a night?

NEWTON: Oh, I've got to get eight. And you know what? I could use nine or 10. And I get mine if allowed I'll get my nine or 10 hours.


VAUSE: -- difficult. (INAUDIBLE)

NEWTON: But I think it was so startling about the impairment.

How many time have you gone 18 hours without sleep?

VAUSE: Often. Often. I did that today.

NEWTON: You wouldn't do that with a few drinks. And there you are.

VAUSE: There you go.

NEWTON: Oh, OK. See, back to sleep.

You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm Paula Newton.

VAUSE: I'm John Vause. Follow us on Twitter @CNNNewsroomLA. Rosemary Church will be back after a short break. Well, will start after a short break. We'll see you tomorrow.