Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Pressures Republican Senators To End Obamacare; Trump On Defensive Over Undisclosed Meeting With Putin; Russian Lawyer At Trump Tower Meeting Offers To Testify; Trump and Putin Met A Second Time At G20 Summit; Theresa May: No Such Thing As An Unsackable Minister; BBC Under Fire As Report Reveals Gender Pay Gap; British Royals Begin Tour Of Germany. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired July 19, 2017 - 15:00   ET





HANNAH VAUGHAN JONES, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello. Welcome to you all. I'm Hannah Vaughan Jones in for Hala Gorani. Live from CNN London

and this is the WORLD RIGHT NOW.

So Donald Trump is twisting arms and turning up the heat on fellow Republicans today making a last ditch effort to save a major campaign

promise from total collapse.

But once again, he is getting distracted by the drip, drip of revelations on Russia. The U.S. president on the defensive after news surfaced of a

second undisclosed meeting with Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit.

It wasn't just a hello in the hallways either. They met after dinner for almost an hour with no U.S. translator present, just a Russian one. That

means, of course, there is no U.S. record of the conversation between two men.

Mr. Trump is accusing the media of making the meeting sound sinister calling that, quote, "sick." He's trying to focus on keeping his

healthcare reform effort alive.

Mr. Trump summoned Republican senators to the White House today under pressure to score his first big legislative achievement. He is turning up

the pressure on them.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm ready to act for seven years you promised the American people that you would repeal

Obamacare. People are hurting. Inaction is not an option.

And frankly I do not think we should leave town unless we have a health insurance plan, unless we can give our people great health care because we

are close. We are very close.


JONES: OK. Let's get the very latest now from CNN White House reporter, Stephen Collinson. Stephen, first they were going to repeal and replace

Obamacare then just yesterday they were talking about just repealing it.

Now the president is demanding a replacement again, and we just heard the Senate majority leader saying that there is going to be a vote next week.

How on earth are they going to vote when they don't have the votes?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. There is a lot of sort of Washington maneuvering going on here. First of all, there is a bit

of a case of political whiplash as you said.

The president once the bill failed earlier this week, he came out and said, OK, we're just going to have a repeal vote and that's going to be the end

of it.

During this meeting with senators, he is back to the repeal and replace formula, which makes it very confusing and a way to work out what exactly

the president's position is and in some ways that has been one of the problems.

This made it more difficult to pass this bill in the first place. Now what we know is going to take place is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is

going to hold a vote next week on proceeding to debate on a repeal bill.

That does not mean that someone could come along with some magic 11th hour solution and put it and amend the bill and make it a repeal and replace

bill that does not seem very likely, but you know, this is Washington. Nothing is dead until it is really dead.

Even successful bills go through these near-death experiences, but it just seems to me that there was nothing in that meeting that the president

produced that would have change the basic formula we have here, which is you have a very divided Republican Party.

On the one hand, you have arch conservatives who say the current bill does not go far enough in getting rid of Obamacare. On the other hand, you have

moderates who are worried about taking health coverage away from vulnerable Americans.

Every time you give to one, you take away from the other and that is the reason the bill has been so difficult to pass. So in many ways, it looks

like what is happening is various political leaders are making an effort to keep this going while at the same time preparing their sort of exit

strategy and their capacity to blame each other if it does not work out.

JONES: OK. From one meeting then to another, well, a second one as it turns out, will these Russia stories still swirling around this White

House, why is it that this administration seems to have such a problem with transparency?

[15:05:12]Why not come up front and tell everyone that there was a second meeting between President Trump and President Putin?

COLLINSON: I think the reason for that is that -- as you say there is a sort of a conspiracy mindset in the White House and not really into

transparency whatsoever.

We are having press briefings in Washington that are not even on camera. I guess they realized that news of a second meeting between Donald Trump and

Vladimir Putin would be explosive and controversial.

But the fact they did not come out and say it happened has made it even more so. But that seems to be the way the White House press strategy

works. You know, if this had been Angela Merkel, for example, talking to Vladimir -- talking to Trump for an hour during this meeting, nobody would

have batted an eyelid.

But it's the context that's important here, you know, President Trump who is not an experienced international player, he is not a details man as we

have seen in the health care debate and on foreign policy talking to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is an experienced, cunning,

resourceful world leader, who, by the way, is accused of interfering in the U.S. election to favor Trump.

That is why it is so controversial and the fact that there was no translator or no U.S. official, no one else in the U.S. government, let

alone the public can really know what exactly went on this.

So it's gotten a lot worse by them not coming and telling us, but it's possible that people in the White House don't even know what happened in

this meeting.

JONES: Right. Just a Russian translator there. Stephen Collinson, thanks so much. We appreciate it.


JONES: Meetings galore on the show tonight, a big development now on that meeting between Donald Trump's inner circle, a Russian attorney and others

at Trump Tower last year.

We could learn a whole lot more about what happened from the attorney herself. She is now afraid to testify and the top Senate investigator just

said his committee would welcome the opportunity, no surprise there.

E-mails released by Donald Trump Jr. showed he was told a Russian government attorney had information helpful to his father's campaign, but

Natalia Veselnitskaya denies having that such information or any Kremlin connections.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Speaking in foreign language).


JONES: Well, CNN's Matthew Chance is following this story and other developments from Moscow for us. Matthew, a tantalizing offer there from

Veselnitskaya. She talked there about needing here safety protected. What other conditions are there for her testifying?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that was the main condition that she was suggesting during this interview with

"Russia Today," which is a state-controlled Russian television station.

And it is not clear how credible those threats that she feels to her safety are. But she appears to be making the suggestion that she has enemies in

United States and elsewhere outside of Russia that wish her harm.

And she would want to have guarantees that she would not be harmed in any way where she to travel to the United States to testify at one of those

congressional hearings.

She mentioned the Senate hearing. But I can tell you about Natalia Veselnitskaya is that she is a leading advocate, the leading advocate

perhaps in Russia for the repeal of the U.S. Magnitsky Act.

This is an act we have been talking about a lot on CNN over the course of the past couple of weeks, which was designed by the United States in order

to punish suspected human rights abuses and corrupt officials specifically in Russia.

Those officials linked to the Magnitsky fraud, which amounted to $230 million as identified by Sergey Magnitsky, who was a Russian lawyer

who was killed in custody.

This is what she wants to talk about. This is what she says she traveled to Trump Tower back in June 2016 to discuss with Donald Trump Jr. I think

it's very unlikely that we are getting at any other sort of juicy details from other than what she wanted to say in the first place.

JONES: Yes, crucially, she is claiming a complete ignorance on whether there was any dirt on Hillary Clinton discussed at this meeting.

CHANCE: Yes. She is saying she has no idea about any kind of the compromising information that would damage the Clinton campaign. That's of

course the reason Trump Jr. we know this from his emails took the meeting in the first place.

He thought that she had sort of evidence that was going to be useful to his father politically when it came to the upcoming presidential battle.

[15:10:02]She also denies, Natalia Veselnitskaya, that she has anything to do with the kremlin. She was not sent there she says on kremlin business

in order to prove the Trump campaign to see whether they would be open to the possibility of collusion with the kremlin.

She categorically denies that as indeed as the kremlin. They said they've never even heard of this lawyer.

JONES: Matthew Chance live in Moscow, thank you.

Our next guest knows Russia very well indeed and have an interesting perspective on Donald Trump's previously undisclosed second meeting now

with Vladimir Putin. Andrew Wood is a former British ambassador to Russia. He is now an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Chatham

House. Joins me now in the studio.

Ambassador, welcome. Thank you for joining us. Is it normal to have these informal bilateral meetings on the sidelines of a G20 Summit, for example?

ANDREW WOOD, FORMER BRITISH AMBASSADOR To RUSSIA: It would be normal to get up and say hello, to sit down and have an interview is something rather

different particularly (inaudible) what went on.

JONES: Fifty five minutes, we understand, is the length of this discussion. That is a long time for small talk.

WOOD: Too long to talk about the weather for sure.

JONES: Yes, exactly. So what --

WOOD: It would be unnatural.

JONES: We had no idea of ever finding out what was actually discussed, presumably, because there was no U.S. translator present.

WOOD: No. But presumably the president can remember what was said so he presumably would be telling a D.C. secretary of state what went on.

JONES: Do you think this would have alerted, surprised, perhaps worried, other G20 leaders because President Trump is correct in saying that

everyone knew this meeting was happening because it was a public dinner for all of the leaders at the G20 and their various partners as well.

So people would have seen the two of them presumably in the corner talking. What was their reaction have been?

WOOD: They were speculating (inaudible). I mean, you could attach almost anything to it. Maybe it began so much impromptu when President Trump

decided that he walk up and say hello to his colleague, President Putin, to say how grateful he was for the brilliant talk in the formal meeting.

And to go on for 55 minutes would be impossible they did not discuss, for example, the situation with Ukraine or the situation in Syria or indeed the

difficulties that Mr. Trump is finding himself in in the United States.

JONES: And if they did indeed talk about significant policy issues, one would hope, one would expect that Rex Tillerson, the U.S. secretary of

state would have been aware of and perhaps would have briefed President Trump on those discussions?

WOOD: If this is preplanned then it makes (inaudible) to go without an interpreter. It's not because the interpreter is bound to keep a record,

but because obviously he would know what had actually happened and he could refresher the president's memory if it needed refreshing. And correct any

misleading statements that might come out of the kremlin.

JONES: From your experience of working in Russia and working with the Kremlin, what you make of President Trump and President Putin's

relationship? The way that they seem to interact with each other at least in what we saw from the formal meeting.

WOOD: That's a tricky question, but I will answer it. President Putin is careful in what he says. He is not habitually or necessarily truthful, but

he does think about the effect of what he says in ignorance however of what reaction is going to provoke in other people.

President Trump is learning on the job, but he appears to speak off the cuff, which is one reason why other people would be really suspicious of

what was said then maybe it was nothing, maybe it was just to a genuine follow-up. But as I said for 55 minutes, you cannot just talk about


JONES: And why do you think it took the White House so long to disclose or to acknowledge this meeting actually happened. Could it be that White

House officials simply didn't know?

WOOD: It could. This is an administration which is renowned in telling all these people what's going on or defining necessarily right to do so.

It is a very personal administration, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad, but it is just the way it runs. It is not very systematic.

JONES: And finally, if we do hear from the Kremlin about the details of this meeting given the fact that it was just Trump, Putin, and a Russian

translator, are privy to the details. Should we take what they say with a pinch of salt?

[15:15:04]WOOD: Well, yes, of course. First of all, they will follow their own interests in our country. Secondly, even when there was a

meeting with quite a large number of other people in it (inaudible) first meeting, both sides gave rather different accounts of what was actually

said and agreed.

So people do tend to project their assumptions and hopes onto the meetings just occurred and there is an automatic risk of distortion in that --

JONES: Ambassador, it's wonderful to get your perspective. It's very interesting indeed. Andrew Wood, thank you very much.

Still to come on the program this evening, as Brexit negotiations press on, a warning from Theresa May to her own cabinet. No one is unsackable.

Also the BBC releases the salaries of its highest paid stars. We'll tell you why the list is causing controversy. That still ahead.


JONES: Welcome back. When you are looking to charm a whole nation on a foreign trip, it doesn't hurt to have a couple of thoughtless info. Well,

that what the case when the British Royals took a trip to Germany with Prince George and Princess Charlotte stealing the show.

The family have had a busy day meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel, and visiting Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. That trip is being viewed by many as

soft power approach to diplomacy as Brexit negotiations get underway.

And with those talks beginning under a cloud of some uncertainty, some in Theresa May's own cabinet have begun to air their disagreements in public.

Mrs. May had a warning for those ministers on British radio earlier.


THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The issue that came up particularly at the weekend was the issue of reported conversations that has taken place

at a cabinet meeting, a very simple approach in this country that things said in those cabinet meetings should not be reported out to the public in

that way.

And people should accept active responsibility when decisions are taken. There is such thing as an unsackable minister, but at the moment, the team

is together and we are getting on with the job of delivering what we want - - what we believe the British people want us to do.


JONES: In that same interview, Theresa May said Britain's Brexit negotiating position was just as strong as it was before the last month's

shock election.

Let's go live to Brussels. Erin McLaughlin live for us there. I wonder whether Brussels think that Britain's position is just as strong as it was

just a few months ago. Is that concern in the E.U. that the U.K. far more interested in internal bickering than getting on with the job?

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Hannah, publicly, anyway, E.U. officials here are not commenting on the political situation playing out in

the U.K. not even really privately at this time either given the negotiations, the latest round of negotiations are ongoing.

[15:20:05]But privately following the general election, I was speaking to E.U. diplomats, E.U. officials as well as MEPs and they were very concerned

about the political situation, the uncertainty, and the turmoil there in the U.K.

They were really hoping out of the general election to get a strong negotiating partner, someone with the political capital to be able to

compromise. Also someone with a clear idea in terms of what the U.K. wants out of these future relationship.

Now this political turmoil, E.U. officials saying is somewhat less of a concern for the current round of talks, which are currently focusing on the

financial as well as the rights of citizens becomes more of a concern as you start discussing that future relationship because it is unclear what

exactly the U.K. wants out of the future relationship with the E.U.

There seems to be division within Theresa May's own cabinet. So senior MEPs and officials I've been speaking to here very, very worried about

that. It will be interesting to see what comes out of press conference tomorrow here in Brussels.

Michel Barnier, the chief Brexit negotiator for the E.U., David Davis, the Brexit secretary for the U.K. are expected to be at that press conference

giving an update on these ongoing talks.

So it will be interesting to see if David Davis is asked a question about the political situation there at Westminster -- Hannah.

JONES: Yes, uncertainty on both side still. Erin McLaughlin live for us in Brussels, thank you.

Coming up later in the show, my conversation with the German MEP, who made this intriguing remark a little earlier.


HANS-OLAF HENKEL, GERMAN MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: I think it is very obvious that it is not necessarily Britain, which left the E.U. You

could also make the case that it is the E.U. who left Britain.


JONES: Find out what he meant in the full interview coming up in around 10 minutes from now.

In the meantime, it is the question everyone wants to ask, but knows they really should not. How much do you earn? Well, now a lot of the BBC's

biggest star have had that question answered in a very public way.

The broadcaster released a report listing its top earners. Former "Top Gear" host, Chris Evans is the highest-paid male star. He earns upwards of

$3 million a year.

BBC's highest paid female is Claudia Winkleman. She hosts the hit "Strictly Come Dancing," but is way behind Evans on the salary scale

earning $586,000. Prime Minister Theresa May says the BBC's gender pay gap must be tackled.

Nina Dos Santos has been tracking this story and all the reaction to it all day. Nina, welcome to you. How do BBC justifying? Not just the height of

the salaries, but the gap between the salaries.

NINA DOS SANTOS, CNN MONEY EUROPE EDITOR: Well, this gap was leaked yesterday evening before the report actually came out earlier today,

Hannah, and we saw immediately, Tony Hall, the director general of the BBC, hitting the airwaves as the BBC being grilled by some of those very

presenters who are on the list here.

Saying, essentially, look, between staff who are looking at themselves in embarrassment asking why they might be paid multiples or in some cases

fractions what other colleagues are paid.

Remember that people do extra shows sometimes, as some people are paid more because they don't do say a news job, they might also have an entertainment

show on the side as well.

But the reality is that the big message from this report is not just that some of these stars are paid millions for what they do at what is

essentially a big public service provider.

By the way, that is the reason why the government a year or so ago forced the BBC to unveil these pay grades here for 96 top earning stars. It

really is that what we are talking about here is the largest broadcaster in the world being home to a startling gender pay gap here.

Not just at the individual level of some of these stars, between men and women, you mentioned Claudia Winkleman earning almost five times less than

Chris Evans, the highest earning male presenter vis-a-vis two women that make the top earners in the BBC.

And when you look at the overall pay gap between men and women across the rest of the country that's at only 18 percent difference, which is already

too big a difference, many equality campaigners say.

So this is a startling difference on individual levels and also when it comes to the ratio. Two-thirds of the top earners are men, just one-third

of them are women.

JONES: Now the BBC says it's going to tackle this and it's tackling it quickly, something like 2020, I think they said, but they will be some more

gender parity as par as pay is concerned.

Does that mean that that we are going to some of the top male earners either sacked or taking a major pay cut or are the women going to suddenly

start earning millions as well?

DOS SANTOS: Well, we had one of the directors of news and current affairs on CNN earlier today, interviewed by one of our colleagues saying we are

going to be looking at the mix of (inaudible).

Does that mean that some of the men are going to lose their jobs, well, hopefully not, who knows? But what I should say in the meantime is that a

lot of the women have gamely put their hands up for a pay rise to help the BBC achieve its goals of gender parity as you've mentioned by the end of

this decade.

[15:25:09]Now I want to talk about Jane Garvey here who is a famous presenter on BBC radio. She tweeted earlier today saying, "I'm looking

forward to presenting BBC "Women's Hour" today, we are going to be discussing the gender pay gap as we've done since 1946, going well, isn't


But may ironic statements there from presenters and also some of the male presenters as well. You know, Gary (inaudible) starting out the day at

6:00 in the morning hitting Twitter before his salary details were released. He is the second highest earning male at the BBC.

He says, "I blame my agent and the other TV channels that pay more. Now where do I put my tin helmet to go to work?" This idea that other

commercial organizations are going to be paying more than the BBC, though. According to some agents it does not necessarily fly.

And remember that the government pushed the BBC to be more transparent because it wanted some of these pay grades to come down. The problem is

that some people in the talent management world say that this is going to end up being inflationary because a lot of people are going to ask for pay

rises to make the equality matter.

JONES: And in the meantime, everyone is hunting down (inaudible)'s agent. Nina, thanks --

DOS SANTOS: Or Chris Evans.

JONES: Indeed. Nina Dos Santos, thank you very much indeed.

An update now on a story we brought you first yesterday, we are learning more about the shooting death of an Australian woman in the U.S. city of


Justine Ruszczyk died after being shot by a police officer. She called police twice to report what she thought might be a sexual assault near her

home. Transcripts of her phone calls have been released.

Among other things, Ruszczyk said, quote, "I can hear someone out the back and I am not sure if she is having sex or being raped." Her family are

demanding answers about Justine's death.

Still ahead on the WORLD RIGHT NOW tonight, a new study says Emmanuel Macron is sending France's star into orbit and leaving the U.S. behind.

Plus, it's a family affair, a new article in "People" magazine puts the Trumps under a microscope.


JONES: It has been a busy day for Prince William and his family as the Royals started their tour of Germany, which came at the request of

Britain's Foreign Office. And as Atika Shubert tell us, they brought out the crowds in Berlin.


ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Britain's Foreign Office maybe hoping that the soft power of the Royal family may be

able to smooth over any frayed relations from the Brexit negotiations.

Prince William and Kate Middleton, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are on their three-day Germany tour. They arrived here in Berlin and first met

Chancellor Angela Merkel.

They then came here to the historic Brandenburg Gate. They were able to shake some hands, meet a few members of public.

And as you can imagine, there were quite a few royal fans here. In fact, the royal family still very popular here in Germany. Take a listen to what

a few fans told us earlier today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope to see today Kate and William, to take a picture together, and to sign. And then I'm happy, tired, hungry and --




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the Queen is really popular in Germany because she's been there a long time. And I don't know, they're just the

whole -- the package of the whole royal family and all the glamour and the circumstances.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we kind of all miss having a royal family, but we don't want one anymore. Like, I'm not a royalist. I'm glad that

we're a republic. But watching royal families is just fun, all the pomp and circumstance. It's just like a good show.

SHUBERT: Now, it's all part of a very diverse itinerary. In addition to Berlin, they'll be going to Heidelberg and Hamburg as well. They'll be

going to a children's charity, a medical charity, also enjoying an evening at the Hamburg Philharmonic.

Now, in addition to that, as part of the Brexit spirit, they'll be going to Airbus on their last day to see some of that German manufacturing at work.

What they will not be doing is getting into any of the politics, any of the nitty gritty negotiations of Brexit.

This is really about reaffirming the friendship between Germany and the U.K.

Atika Shubert, CNN, Berlin.


HANNAH VAUGHAN JONES, CNN ANCHOR: Well, one person who is certainly getting involved in the politics of Brexit is the German MEP Hans-Olaf


Today, he's accused the E.U. of seeking to punish Britain in its negotiation talks. I spoke with him a short time ago and began by asking

if he wanted Brexit to be a success.


HANS-OLAF HENKEL, MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, GERMANY: Well, I certainly would like to be it a success. I was against Brexit, I should

tell you, to start with, but I'm afraid that there are powerful forces in Brussels who do not really like to be, this, a success.

And I'm very concerned about the role of Mr. Verhofstadt, who is leading this group which had been appointed by the previous president of the

parliament, Mr. Schulz. He leads a group which is a Brexit group, and I am extremely worried by their attitude.

VAUGHAN JONES: You've written an article in the times newspaper here in the U.K. in which you say, and I quote, in my view, he -- and you were

referring to Guy Verhofstadt -- is responsible in no small part for the disaster of Brexit.

You also seemed to suggest that Mr. Verhofstadt and Mr. Barnier are almost to blame for goading Britain into Brexit in the first place. How so?

HENKEL: Well, I think this, for me, very clear because both of them, but in particular Mr. Verhofstadt, gave all the arguments to the Farages and

the Johnsons on the island to rally for their Brexit vote.

They were totally against, especially Mr. Verhofstadt, against any compromises with the Prime Minister Cameron. He said that if you are in

the common market, you must also allow unlimited movement of people.

I think that is totally wrong, and that was one of the reasons why, in my opinion, finally the balance in the U.K. tipped towards Brexit. So it is

Mr. Verhofstadt himself who is to be blamed in part for what happened.

VAUGHAN JONES: But do you accept that the E.U., the European Union, needs to be seen at least to punish Britain somewhat in order to discourage other

member states from perhaps taking the same route down the line?

HENKEL: Well, I certainly don't believe they should, but they --again, there are some people who think that that should exactly happen. Again,

Verhofstadt and Barnier, they say, for instance, that a country which is not in the E.U. should not have the same deal as a country which is in the


Well, they totally forgot the fact that, for instance, the Horizon 2020 Program which is the research program in the E.U., we have Switzerland as a

normal member. And as a matter of fact, even Israel participates in this particular program.

So I asked the question, why not Britain? So if they don't want Britain to give that kind of a deal, then I can only see another motive. And that

motive is to discourage potentially other countries to leave the European Union by giving Britain a bad deal.

VAUGHAN JONES: There is a lot of infighting in the U.K. in the moment, in the British government. What do you want to see from Britain as it goes

into these negotiations?

[15:34:57] HENKEL: Well, first of all, I would urge or suggest to Britain to continue to be, I'd say, confident because I think it is very obvious

that it is necessarily Britain which left the E.U.

You could also make the case that it is the E.U. who left Britain because if you look at all the harmonization and centralization and the attempts of

people like Verhofstadt to make a United States of Europe out of the E.U., these are all violations of the agreement in Lisbon which Britain has


So I don't believe in the United States of Europe. In Europe, we have 24 languages. This will never work. And by the way, the country of Mr.

Verhofstadt, Belgium, has two languages and it doesn't work there either.

VAUGHAN JONES: There are many moderates in this country who say that we need a more moderate approach going into these negotiations. That the hard

Brexiteers who are leading the negotiations for Britain at the moment are spoiling any chances of a successful transition.

Are you suggesting that those hardliners also exist on the E.U. side and they too are going to spoil these divorce proceedings?

HENKEL: Well, look, I don't think we need hardliners in the U.K. and I am fighting the hardliners in Brussels with my seat in the E.U. parliament and

with the political group in which I am in, the European Conservatives and Reformists.

So I think we should drop the idea of hard Brexit, and we should also show the same kind of flexibility on the side of the Europeans. Brexit is not

good for the U.K., and Brexit is bad also for the E.U. So let's make the best out of this problem.

And you can only achieve that by reasonability on both sides. And I must say my impression is that we have some very hardliners in Brussels who just

don't want that to be successful.

VAUGHAN JONES: It was, of course, a public referendum here in Britain that got into Brexit in the first place. If public sentiment changes over the

course of the next few years, can you see a situation where the public, perhaps another referendum, might just pull the plug on Brexit altogether?

HENKEL: Well, the general public, I think, in Europe, as much as I sniff it, if you wish, is disappointed with Britain leaving. And in my personal

opinion, Britain leaving the European Union means that the last with common sense is leaving the European Union because Britain is a country which

believes in subsidiarity and safe responsibility and in a Europe of sovereign nations.

And Verhofstadt now and Eurofiers -- and there are a lot in Brussels -- they believe, now having left Britain or leaving Britain out, you can now

push into the United States of Europe. That's why I think it is so important to have the British voice with some influence in Europe.


VAUGHAN JONES: Hans-Olaf Henkel, the German MEP, speaking to me earlier on.

Now, the British royals may be trying to burnish the U.K. standing on the world stage in the midst of Brexit but a new report says France is now the

leader when it comes to its soft power. The term refers to a country that uses their political values, culture, and foreign policy rather than

coercion to win influence.

And France rose from fifth place to first, due in larger part to Emmanuel Macron's big election victory as well as what the report calls the

country's unrivaled diplomatic network.

Well, the U.K. is now in second place, followed by the U.S. in third, and also then Germany and Canada.

Jonathan McClory, the author of "The Soft Power 30" report joins me now. Welcome to you.


VAUGHAN JONES: France making it to the top of the list, can it all be down to Emmanuel Macron? He's only been president for a matter of months.

MCCLORY: It can't be completely down to Macron. France has always done very well in the study that we run.

This is the third year that we've run it. France has always been in the top five. And as you say, they have a phenomenal diplomatic network.

One of the elements of the soft power study looks at a country's global engagement and that looks at things like diplomatic network, number of

multilateral organizations a country is a member of. And France is -- has been top of that each year.

VAUGHAN JONES: Similarly, the U.S. dropping down to third, can that all be down to Donald Trump, perhaps, unraveling his predecessor's efforts in

terms of American global influence?

MCCLORY: I think with Trump, we can say primarily it has be down to that, right? So the framework that we developed combines objective metrics, but

also it looks at international polling. And the U.S. took a quite heavy fall in the polling this year from 2016 to 2017.

And I don't know if that's necessarily down purely to Trump and a dislike for Trump. I think it's a dislike of America First and the idea that we're

going to after what we want and everybody else, you know, we could care less.

[15:39:57] VAUGHAN JONES: How big a role does the media play as far as soft power is concerned? Because we see -- we've been talking about the

BBC on the program so far. I mean, that is arguably, I suppose, Britain's biggest soft power arm.

And then even Russia has R.T. China has its own channel. France has France 24 as well. How big a role do these networks play?

MCCLORY: I think a very big role, and that's why so many governments invest in state broadcasters. They don't all do as well.

I think the BBC World service is probably the gold standard. But R.T. has seen, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of investment in

promoting their network.

It is a very important part of soft power. It's how countries get their message out, in many ways.

VAUGHAN JONES: And, of course, Britain has a royal family, and they're on this unofficial Brexit tour at the moment in Germany. The young royals

are. How helpful is that to Britain and other celebrities as well?

I mean, you could argue I suppose that Ivanka Trump and many members of the Trump family might be useful down the line, as far as the U.S.

administration goes.

MCCLORY: Potentially. I think the British royals are a unique case, and I don't think they'll play well, perhaps, everywhere. But in some countries,

they're very popular, particularly if you look at, for whatever reason, the United States. Americans love the royal family.

VAUGHAN JONES: Not in the commonwealth though.

MCCLORY: Not in -- well, yes, I think they're well liked pretty much everywhere. Maybe not every member of the royal family, but I think the

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are, you know, arguably some of the more popular of the royal family.

So I do think they play an important role. They're above the political fray and they're meant to embody the values of Britain. And they do that

very well.

VAUGHAN JONES: Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, is perhaps coming to the end of his honeymoon period in the Elysee Palace. He's already now

spat something of a row with army generals in France over budget cuts. Could it be that we're seeing France now perhaps dipping down the list the

next time you compile it?

MCCLORY: That's a very good question. So last year, we saw Canada and Argentina both move up off the back of new energetic leaders that helped

galvanize the country. So we've seen this positive impact that new leaders can have, which Macron has definitely had, without question.

The problem is, can they keep the momentum, right? So Canada actually fell this year from fourth to fifth. So, you know, that momentum sort of

slipped. So that will be the real question is.

You know, Macron has a mountain to climb domestically and internationally. But if he can keep the momentum, you know, it's all to play for.

VAUGHAN JONES: Overall, do world leaders look at soft power as the must do approach now, or is it still the strongman sort of Putin, I suppose,

approach that is the most favored?

MCCLORY: Well, I think everybody has a difficult approach. But even, you know, you look at more not exactly authoritarian states but a country like

a China, which doesn't have to worry too much about image domestically because they control pretty much everything --

VAUGHAN JONES: Because they control --

MCCLORY: Exactly. But they have invested billions of dollars in soft power infrastructure, in Confucius institutes to promote Chinese language

and culture. In their Xinhua news agency, they've invested a great deal of money as well. So they see the value of improving their reputation, their

soft power.

But soft power, as important as it is, and I -- and we do think it's getting more important, hard power isn't going anywhere. It's still a very

important part of the foreign policy tool kit.

VAUGHAN JONES: Fascinating stuff, Jonathan McClory. Appreciate you coming in. Thank you.

MCCLORY: Thank you.

VAUGHAN JONES: And speaking of power, apparently, the President holds the keys inside his family. We'll dive into the "People" magazine's latest

cover story with our senior media correspondent, Brian Stelter. That's coming up, next.


[15:45:37] VAUGHAN JONES: Welcome back to the program. Now, the Trump administration just took another hit over its controversial travel ban.

The Supreme Court says grandparents and other relatives who want to visit family in the United States can do so. The decision lets a decision by a

federal judge in Hawaii stand.

So as you've been hearing, the President had some bitter pills to swallow this week. And there's that pesky meeting that his son had a Russian

lawyer and a handful of other people as well.

"People" magazine looked at the complex dynamics inside the family in this week's cover story. The headline, "The Trump Family: Secrets and Lies."

The piece looks at how Donald Trump, Jr. has emulated his father.

Well, our senior media correspondent, Brian Stelter, joins me now live from New York.

Brian, tell us more about this "People" cover, its sources, and its credibility.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: I think it's notable because this is not, you know, just a news magazine for news nerds. This

is not a publication that's a niche that only a few people read.

This is a big magazine in the United States, a heartland magazine with millions of readers, many families and female readers. So it's notable

whenever you see a magazine like "People" talking about secrets and lies of the President's family right there on the cover.

This is a deeply reported piece talking about Eric and Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka. It's certainly the kind of thing that's going to sting if the

President sees it. And we know that he is a fan of various weekly magazine like "TIME." So it's notable for that reason, mostly.

I think that it's a sign that the stories about Russia, the story about Don, Jr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer last year, this is a subject

that has penetrated the national consciousness. Most Americans are aware of it according to polling, are paying attention to this.

Most Americans think Don, Jr. should not have gone to that meeting, that Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort should not have gone to that meeting. So

it has reached a point now where it's receiving widespread attention, even from magazines like "People."

VAUGHAN JONES: Speaking of a media backlash, if you like, against Trump and the Trump family, one area what you think would be totally in favor of

Donald Trump would be Breitbart. And yet we're hearing that Breitbart's White House reporters is the one packing the biggest punch when it comes to

those White House briefings?

STELTER: Yes. There was a great analysis of this by "The Washington Post" this week, and it is true that Breitbart is trying to hold the President

accountable from the right. Meaning on issues that the President campaigned on that his base was particularly eager to see, for example, the

building of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

We do see conservative outlets like Breitbart trying to hold the White House's feet to the fire. Whether that's actually working or not, whether

they're seeing policy goals achieved is another thing entirely.

Tomorrow, of course, is the six-month anniversary of the President's inauguration. We're going to see a lot of stories about unfulfilled

promises and about work that is still left to be done. But we are seeing from the Breitbarts of the world, you know, maybe a gradually increasing

amount of frustration or angst about some of those unfulfilled promises.

VAUGHAN JONES: And is that going to have any impact on the President? Is he going to label Breitbart fake news?

STELTER: Well, certainly, he pays attention to what right wing outlets are saying about him. Those are outlets that tend to be a source of comfort

for him. He can look at those positive headlines and lambast the rest of the media as being fake and dismiss it.

So when you have conservative news outlets asking pointed questions, demanding answers about what -- you know, where are the things you promised

this time last year, it could have an impact.

We know this President mostly gets his news from television, but he does have Web articles and print articles put in front of him by advisers. He

does come across some of these other coverage, and he devours news coverage about himself.

It's one of the unique qualities of the first six months of the Trump presidency, is that he continues to devour news coverage of himself and of

his administration. He -- of course, we hear about it when he thinks the coverage is too negative.

But right now, there's a lot to scrutinize, whether it's about this newly discovered meeting with -- between Trump and Putin, whether this voter

fraud commission that's in the news today. The six-month mark of his presidency shows there's a lot to scrutinize.

VAUGHAN JONES: Yes. And with Steve Bannon by his side as well, it's very unlikely, I guess, that it -- he would not have seen or heard about this

negative --

STELTER: That's right.

VAUGHAN JONES: -- Breitbart tactic.

STELTER: That's right.

VAUGHAN JONES: Brian Stelter. Always good to speak to you, Brian. Thank you.

STELTER: Thank you.

[15:50:00] VAUGHAN JONES: Coming up on THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. Tonight, a receding glacier provides the solution to a 75-year mystery high in the

Swill Alps. We find out more, next.


VAUGHAN JONES: Welcome back. Green technologies are driving our energy future. But to run electric cars and wind turbines, you need rare earths.

Nina dos Santos takes a closer look now at these special metals.


NINA DOS SANTOS, CNNMONEY EUROPE EDITOR (voice-over): Steppenigel's in Northern Kazakhstan. The Soviet architecture is a reminder of the past.

This city used to be secret, missing from many maps. Once, biological weapons were made here. Today, it's making a reputation for other complex

chemical processes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The raw mineral is delivered by train. It's the left over byproduct of a former uranium chemical factory.

We process it to make a rare earth concentrate.

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Rare earth elements are a group of 17 metals and here they are in their rawest form. Sacks of earth, a valuable and sought

after commodity.

The global market is expected to grow to more than $12 billion by 2021, according to market researcher, TechNavio's 2017 report.

DOS SANTOS (on camera): Rare earths are only found in certain specific parts of the world, including here in Kazakhstan. But you're probably more

familiar with them than you might think.

For instance, they're used in mobile phones, like this one, and also in a host of clean technology as well.

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Reducing petrol and diesel consumption is high on the list of priorities for environmentalists. Rare earths are vital

ingredients in the motors used to make many electric vehicles. And countries like Kazakhstan have the materials which could make the


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We call rare earths the vitamins of the metallurgical process. Even a tiny amount of these elements

significantly changes the capabilities of metals and alloys. They are used in computers, super magnets, from electric vehicles and in the renewable

energy sector.

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): This processing plant opened in March 2017. The raw earth that it receives is a byproduct of uranium mining in the west.

Each shipment is tested for consistency and humidity.

By 2018, the goal is to have 1,000 tons rolling off the production line, ready for sale onto the global market.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Up until now, we haven't really had an opportunity to exploit those markets. We see that market growing substantially. And so

what has been essentially a waste product until now, we have to be a future source of revenue.

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Currently, less than one percent of the global car fleet is electric according to the World Energy Council. But growth is


In July 2017, the Swedish car manufacturer, Volvo, announced that every vehicle launched from 2019 onwards will have electric motors, which could

signal a turning point for the industry at large and begin to drive down demand for traditional fuels, changing the energy sector shape and this

corner of Kazakhstan's fortunes for the better.


[15:55:02] VAUGHAN JONES: When Marcelin and Francine Dumoulin left home to milk their cows in August 1942, it was the last time they were seen alive.

Nearly eight decades on, a breakthrough. Robyn Curnow reports.


ROBYN CURNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A cold case solved after 75 years. Authorities in Switzerland believe they finally unraveled the

mystery of a missing couple who disappeared in the Alps during World War II.

Earlier this week, a worker at a ski resort found these frozen bodies at a receding glacier near Les Diablerets. Police say it's likely the remains

of Marcelin and Francine Dumoulin who went missing from their farm back in 1942.

Family members say the couple left their nearby village on foot and never returned.

MARCELINE UDRY-DUMOULIN, DAUGHTER OF MISSING COUPLE (through translator): The last time I saw my parents was on the morning of August 15, 1942 when

they left home and told me to look after all my young brothers and sisters.

CURNOW (voice-over): It's believed the couple may have fallen into a crevice. That was 75 years ago. And today, only two of the couple's seven

children survive, two daughters who live in the shadow of the glacier where the bodies were found. DNA tests have now confirmed what family members

say they already knew.

MONIQUE GAUTSCHY-DUMOULIN, DAUGHTER OF MISSING COUPLE (through translator): When authorities told me, she's wearing the clothes of this era and she's

wearing some women's shoes, then I told them, well, this is my mother.

CURNOW (voice-over): The discovery ends decades of uncertainty for the family.

GAUTSCHY-DUMOULIN (through translator): This gives me a deep sense of calm.

UDRY-DUMOULIN (through translator): I really loved my parents, and I was so lucky to have had such great parents. And after that, nothing more.

This is something I will never forget.

CURNOW (voice-over): They're now planning to give their parents a proper burial.

Robyn Curnow, CNN.


VAUGHAN JONES: And finally, tonight, a tantalizing guitar chord, a pause, then the four syllables that has captured the planet.




VAUGHAN JONES: It's official. "Despacito" is now the most streamed song ever. Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee's hit, which means slowly in English,

has now cropped up more than 4.6 billion streams for both the original and the remix. Featuring, of course, Justin Bieber.

It's currently number one in the U.S., U.K., and Australia. Billboard announced "Despacito" over took the former record held by Bieber's "Sorry."

Good stuff, then.

That has been -- this has been, rather, THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. Thanks so much for watching. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.