Return to Transcripts main page


Trump: Suspect should get the death penalty; Judge delays ruling on Manafort, Gates bail conditions; US Facebook ads linked to Russia released; Balfour Declaration: The letter that shaped the Middle East. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired November 2, 2017 - 15:00   ET



HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Hala Gorani. We are covering major stories in the United States where it has been a busy

day for President Trump and also here in the U.K. where a sexual harassment scandal is putting some serious pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May.

We begin this hour in Washington. We are waiting on a major announcement from the White House. The U.S. president, Donald Trump, is about to name

his pick to lead the Federal Reserve.

Two senior administration officials say Mr. Trump will nominate Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell or Jay Powell, as he is called, to lead the

world's most influential bank. We'll go live to the Rose Garden for that in just a moment. I should have said Central Bank.

First, though, it has been a really jampacked day for the president detailing the Republican tax reform plan, which he says will be a special

gift in his words to the American people.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are working to give the American people a giant tax-cut for Christmas. We are giving them

a big beautiful Christmas present in the form of a tremendous tax-cut. It will be the biggest cut in the history of our country. It will also be tax

reform and it will create jobs.


GORANI: So that was from the president. As I mentioned there, any minute we expect President Trump in the Rose Garden at the White House to announce

his pick for Federal Reserve chairman and not chairwoman.

It's currently Janet Yellen. She was appointed by President Obama. But for the economy all the way to terrorism, the president once again wading

into many topics and right into the criminal case that prosecutors are making against the Halloween attack suspect with this choice tweets.

Donald Trump actually suggesting here that the suspect should be executed as you can see there, a highly unusual move since presidents usually avoid

commenting on ongoing criminal cases. He said death penalty in all caps right at the end of his tweet that the process should move fast.

We are covering all the angles in Washington. White House reporter, Stephen Collinson, is with us right now. I don't know if David Swerdlick

is as well. We have David Swerdlick from the "Washington Post." Hello to both of you.

All right. So, Stephen, let's turn a little bit first with this tweet calling for the death penalty by the president. So, going right in there

once again and making kind of, you know, now eyebrow raising comments on Twitter about an ongoing criminal case.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's right, Hala. This (inaudible) the number of legal experts when it first emerged because it

could be seen as the president sort of polluting the jury pool, if you like, ahead of a trial in this case.

Whether that in fact is the case the time this case comes to court, you know, and people believe that the case has been prejudiced against this

defendant just because of the president's words.

That's in months' time so I think it will probably die down by then, but it's certainly another indication of the way that the president has changed

the way the U.S. presidents talk about terror attacks.

We've heard him referring to the defendant in the New York attack as an animal, suggesting that he could be sent to Guantanamo Bay. Even as the

process was on the way to charge this man in the Uzbek -- alleged assailant here in civil court.

So, we saw the president roll it back and I think it is an indication of how the president often says the first thing that comes to his mind. He

has a very emotive and instinctive reaction, but the constraints of his position eventually forced the White House and the president himself

sometimes to roll back.

GORANI: And David, this is obviously a message to a base that will find these words possibly appealing on some level and look, you know, obviously,

a terrorist killed eight people in New York, you get upset. You say things. You say I hope he gets executed or whatever, but it is --

different when a president tweets it to the world.

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure, Hala. I mean, there is nothing wrong with the president being passionate about this issue. As you

said, it is a terrible tragedy that happened on Halloween.

That being said and just to add-on to what Stephen said, right, you have a situation where the president, who is the head of the Department of Justice

is weighing in on what potential punishment the death penalty.

There should be for someone who right now is an accused suspect, but not someone who's been convicted of this crime. The president is signaling as

you say to his base that he is the only one that can be sort of tough on terrorists.

That he is there to shift the paradigm on terrorists, but the reality underlying this, as we know, is that in recent years, hundreds of terror

suspects have been charged, tried and convicted, in the federal court system, and very few of those have been overturned.

GORANI: Right and over 600, I believe. In the White House, we heard from the national security head, H.R. McMaster.

[15:05:05] Stephen, considering relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, I mean, what would that be for at this stage with all the

sanctions against North Korea, all the tough talk. Now what is, a symbolic move?

COLLINSON: Well, given as you say, that there are many, many sanctions on North Korea already. It would be somewhat symbolic, but we also have to

look at the timing of this. The president is just about to head off to Asia on Friday for a 12-day trip in which North Korea, the threat from its

nuclear and ballistic missile program, and the huge tensions between the U.S. and North Korea will be the key issue.

And I think he is trying to create a little bit of leverage for himself before he stops in Beijing where he will ask the Chinese government to do

far more to reign in North Korea, and before he also goes to Seoul where there is some concern about the tone of his rhetoric towards the North.

And perhaps the feeling that they are not quite sure if the president would consult them before taking any military action against North Korea. So, I

think what the president is doing is trying to establish and the national security adviser the point that the key undertaking of this trip is to

bring to the notice of the world that the United States sees North Korea as an imminent threat.

And that something must be done, and it's not just the United States that has to do stuff, it's everyone else has to join as well.

GORANI: And he'll be in Asia as you mentioned. David, Janet Yellen, is the current chairwoman. We expect the president to name her successor, Jerome

Powell or Jay Powell. He's already on the board of governors.

But the tradition has been to keep the fed chair nominated by your predecessor. Is this just about again, sort of demolishing President

Obama's legacy no matter where -- in every place that he can?

SWERDLICK: Yes. Hala, I think it's a little bit about taking another, you know, peg out of the Obama legacy. I also think a little bit is that

President Trump having criticized Janet Yellen while he was a presidential candidate would be, you know, faced with criticism that maybe he did not

really mean it if he simply reappointed her.

The risk for President Trump here, of course, is that under Janet Yellen's tenure. The economy has done pretty well, right. The stock market is up.

Inflation has remained relatively low. Interest rates have not gone up dramatically. Unemployment is down.

The fed plays a huge role in trying to sort out fiscal policy in order to maintain low unemployment or high employment, if you will --

GORANI: David, here is the president. He is walking out now and we are expecting, as we mentioned to nominate the next Federal Reserve chairman.

Let's listen in.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: -- members of Congress and distinguished guests to the White House Rose Garden this

afternoon. Also, I want to welcome the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who's done an incredible job, Mike Crapo. Where is Mike? There

is Mike, great job. Appreciate it.

As president, there are a few decisions more important than nominating leaders of integrity and good judgment to hold trusted positions in public

office, and few of those trusted positions are more important than the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Accordingly, it is my pleasure and my honor to announce my nomination of Jerome Powell to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Congratulations to you. Jay is joined here by his wife, Elissa, and his two sisters, Monica and Elizabeth, and I say, congratulations to you all.

Please take that bow please. You deserve it.

Thank you very much. Today is another important milestone on the path to restoring economic opportunity for the American people. In just a short

time, we have already made incredible strides, unemployment is at its lowest level in more than 16 years.

You know that very well, you know that very well and you are happy about it. We have now had back-to-back quarters of 3 percent growth, a major

accomplishment, and we are doing better and better every single week.

But if we are to sustain all of these tremendous economic products, our economy requires sound monetary policy and prudent oversight of our banking

system. That is why we need strong sound and steady leadership at the United States Federal Reserve.

[15:10:07] I have nominated Jay to be our next federal chairman and so important because he will provide exactly that type of leadership. He is

strong. He is committed. He is smart. And if he is confirmed by the Senate, Jay will put his considerable talents and experience to work

leading our nation's independent Central Bank, which has the critical responsibility to set monetary policy and monitor our banking system as a


There are a few more important positions than this, believe me, in our government. Jay has served on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since

2012. During his five years at the fed, Jay has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues for his hard work, expertise and judgment.

He is proven to be a consensus builder for the sound monetary and financial policy that he so strongly believes in. Based on his record, I am

confident that Jay has the wisdom and leadership to guide our economy through any challenges that our great economy may face.

Jay has earned the respect of members of Congress sprayed across party lines. For each of his appointments to the fed, the Senate confirmed Jay

with strong support from members of both parties. That is unusual.

I hope the Senate will swiftly confirm him once again. Jay will also bring to the fed a unique background of prior government service and business

experience. He previously served as undersecretary at the Department of Treasury in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

And just like William McChesney Mark, the longest-serving chairman in Federal Reserve history, Jay will bring extensive private sector experience

and real-world perspective to our government.

As a result, he understands what it takes for our economy to grow and just as importantly, he understands what truly drives American success, the

innovation, hard work and dreams of the American people.

I also want to thank the current chair, Fed Chair Janet Yellen, a wonderful woman, who has done a terrific job. We have been working together for 10

months and she is absolutely a spectacular person. Janet, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

For the past four years, she has served with dedication and devotion, and we are grateful for her total commitment to public service. The Federal

Reserve is one of the most important institutions in our government. It is respected all around the world and is crucial to our economic prosperity.

I am confident that with Jay as a wise steward of the Federal Reserve, it will have the leadership it needs in the years to come. Thank you and God

bless you all. Now I would like to invite Jay to say a few words. Thank you, thank you very much.

JEROME POWELL, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN NOMINEE: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for the faith that you have shown in me through his

nomination. I am both honored and humbled by this opportunity to serve our great country.

If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will do everything within my power to achieve our congressionally assigned goals of stable prices and maximum

employment. I want to thank my wife, Elissa, for her love and support and wise counsel.

Without her, quite honestly, I would not be standing here. We are thinking today of our three children and of the world they are inheriting. My five

siblings and I, two of whom are here today with me are also thinking today of our parents, who gave us so many gifts, including most of all a loving


In the years since the global financial crisis ended, our economy has made substantial progress toward full recovery. By many measures, we are close

to full employment, inflation has gradually moved up toward our target.

Our financial system is also without doubt far stronger and more resilient than it was before the crisis. Our banks have much higher capital and

liquidity. They are more aware of the risks that they run and they are better at managing those risks.

[15:15:06] While post crisis' improvements in the regulation and supervision have help to achieve these gains, I will continue to work with

my colleagues to ensure that the Federal Reserve remains vigilant and prepared to respond to changes in markets and evolving risks.

Finally, to echo the president's remarks, I have had the great privilege of serving under Chairman Bernanke and Chair Yellen, who guided the economy

with insight and courage through difficult times while moving monetary policy toward greater transparency and predictability.

Each of them embodies the highest ideals of public service unquestioned integrity, and unflinching commitment to fulfilling our mandate. Inside

the Federal Reserve, we understand that monetary policy decisions matter for American families and communities.

I strongly share that sense of mission and I'm committed to making decisions with objectivity based on the best available evidence in the

long-standing tradition of monetary policy independence.

Mr. President, thank you again for this extraordinary opportunity to serve the American people. Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Thank you.

GORANI: President Donald Trump and his nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell. Trump called Jay Powell strong, committed, as well

as, someone that has been confirmed by the Senate before in other positions.

And as you know the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve is a position that needs Senate confirmation in the United States. This is a pick that

signals continuity. It is not usually controversial.

Jay Powell already sits on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, though, typically, presidents keep the Federal Reserve that their

predecessors nominated. In this case, Donald Trump has been critical openly and publicly of Janet Yellen, the current chairwoman of the Federal

Reserve, has decided to name someone else to replace her.

CNN Money's editor-at-large, Richard Quest, joins me now from New York with more on this decision. What did we learn from Jay Powell's statement?

RICHARD QUEST, CNN MONEY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Well, we learned that he knows how to speak in clear, plain English, which is often one of the few things

such as of the fed domes to because by and large, chairs of the fed until now have been academics.

Bernanke was, Greenspan was, Yellen was, they'd been the chairman of the regional feds, and they often been quite difficult to understand. But

listening to Jay Powell just then, you heard somebody who is clearly who was worked. He was at Dillon Reed as an investment banker. He's worked on

Wall Street. He was at the Treasury.

GORANI: Carylyle Group as well -- and this is a very rich man, by the way, it has to be said. This is the kind of man who's worked in establishment

financial institution for a very long time.

QUEST: Absolutely. Now -- so on the plus side, he has clearly worked in the real world of finance, if that be the real world, but he does not have

a PhD in Economics. He is not a great economic thinker and the issue becomes, is that the downside, bearing in mind, that those like Yellen and

Bernanke had really honed their work on terms of macroeconomics.

And I don't think it matters, frankly, in this day and age. I think he surrounds himself with a fed board, regional presidents, there's no doubt,

and remember, Hala, as you rightly said, he has worked with Janet Yellen for the last five years.

He has been on the Board of Governors. He knows his way around the monetary systems. He's got plenty of people who can do the other highbrow

thinking. So, this is continuity. Absolutely, it's an element of continuity.

We can argue or discuss whether or not what it says about Donald Trump and his attitudes towards women that he does not reappoint the first and only

woman fed chair largely because he wants to make his own mark on the institution.

GORANI: But especially considering the fact that he tweets very regularly about how everything is doing just great since he became president. He

again said today that joblessness is at its lowest point in 16 years.

Jay Powell himself said the U.S. economy is close to full employment. He tweets often about how the Dow is hitting record after record. So, if

everything is going so great, why fix something that is not broken.

QUEST: And there is no question that Janet Yellen, both when she was the vice chair with Ben Bernanke and as the chair since has done a stunning,

stellar job of running U.S. monetary policy, but it's not just -- as you know, Hala, it is not just monetary policy. It is also bank regulation.

[15:20:00] It is also the larger macroeconomic issues of debt, leverage, finance within the U.S. economy and --

GORANI: The banks regulation thing is important, isn't it? It's been a lot tighter regulation since the financial crisis. Here you have

potentially a fed chair who is going to be a little looser on that that's the possibility.

QUEST: Yes. But he also supports some version of the Volcker Rule concerning investment banking. He is probably more on the dovish side, but

no -- but here's a real point, Hala, no member of the Fed board, who lived through the worst parts thereafter.

He has been on that board since 2012 is going to suddenly become promiscuous about bank regulation or want to let it go to (inaudible).

He's seen what devastation they've had to repair. So, I think dancing will dancing on the head of a pin when we start talking about is he more

hawkish, is he more dovish on the question of bank regulation.

GORANI: Well, all right, we'll see in which direction he goes if he is confirmed by the Senate --

QUEST: He will be confirmed. He will be confirmed. I'll buy you dinner in any restaurant you like if he's not confirmed.

GORANI: Last time you made that bet wasn't with me, you lost that. You remember. Thanks, Richard Quest. We'll see you later on CNN.

Still to come tonight, a scandal at the heart of British power, one that resonates across the world. Why the British prime minister is under

intense new pressure when her defense secretary had to step down. We'll be right back.


GORANI: Right here in the U.K., there is a growing sense of horror, trepidation, as people wait to see if a scandal at the center of British

power will widen. The prime minister has been forced to replace one of her most senior lawmakers, the Defense Secretary Michael Fallon.

He quit on Wednesday after admitting his behavior toward women had, quote, "Fallen short." Gavin Williamson will now replace him, but this turmoil

may not end here in political circles. Allegations are swirling and for a government that has already faced as many challenges as Theresa May's had.

This is frankly the last thing the prime minister needs.

Diana Magnay is live from Westminster. Could this -- how damaging could this be for Theresa May's government -- Diana.

DIANA MAGNAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, if it's contained as it is now then she seems to have made quite a smooth transition filling Michael Fallon's

role as defense secretary with Gavin Williamson. The chief whip role, which he's vacated, is extremely important for Theresa May now.

But he's deputy have moved in there, Julian Smith, the chief whip, of course, corals Tory MPs to vote in a particular way and with a very thin

majority that she has in parliament, she needs that.

Gavin Williamson is a key ally and she's lot a key ally to Michael Fallon, and that is exactly what she needs at the moment.

[15:25:04] So, so far so good as long as there is no further contagion, as long as these allegations aren't substantiated and don't stick to any other

key figures then she's fitting OK. But there are two ministers currently under investigation and these allegations don't really seemed to be letting

up. So, I think she's certainly pretty worried at the moment -- Hala.

GORANI: Diana Magnay at Westminster, thanks very much.

Journalist Carol Walker is a Westminster veteran. She stared sexual harassment there square in the face and she joins me now. How bad is it

really in the halls of Westminster?

CAROLE WALKER, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, Hala, I actually thought that the culture at Westminster had changed quite significantly since I

first started working there, more than 20 years ago. In those early days, yes, there was a lot of casual sexist remarks, condescension, I wouldn't

say I felt subjected to sexual harassment, but certainly if you went to --

GORANI: From the MPs --

WALKER: -- Westminster parties and so on, wondering hands were a routine hazard. That was the sort of thing that --

GORANI: But from elected officials?

WALKER: Indeed, yes, MPs and other senior figures in the party. It was considered one of the hazards of the job as a young woman at Westminster

and of course, there weren't so very many of us. I genuinely had thought that the culture had improved.

And to a degree I have been surprised, not just at the scale of the allegations that have been coming out, but at the sense that some duly

members have actually been subjected to very serious potentially criminal offenses.

We've heard allegations from a young woman on Labour's (inaudible) executive and says that she was raped. When she went to talk to more

senior staff about it, she was told to keep quiet about it. I think those allegations are really very serious indeed.

GORANI: Certainly. And I hope we get to the bottom of those as well. You wrote for the "Times" newspaper that in one of your first jobs, the

programming editor at your network used to asked young female reporters to discuss assignments while sitting on his knee. And that those who didn't

sit on his knee got, you know, the lesser assignments. That's to me remarkable. I mean, I cannot believe that that ever happened.

WALKER: This is decades ago, Hala, and yes, it was behavior, which again at that time, I did not even consider complaining to anyone. I am not sure

who I would have complained to. I told that incident as a description of the sort of culture, which existed in my early career.

I genuinely do think that things have changed certainly in broadcasting. I left the BBC recently with a fantastic team of people. Nothing like that

would have happened more recently, but is a culture and I think the problem at Westminster is that there are some, perhaps older MPs who don't seem to

have realized that times have change. We are now living in 2017.

GORANI: Right. Absolutely. And perhaps now this sexism is a little bit more nuance, slightly less obvious than the harassment there that was quite

overt of asking young females to sit on one's lap, which is still unbelievable to me that that would ever happen in any era.

Michael Fallon, though, the defense secretary has resigned over a knee pat that happened 15 years ago with a journalist who today says it was not a

big deal. Could that be all that there is here?

WALKER: Well, that is the only incident, which has been confirmed. The suggestion seems to be that he was asked by the prime minister whether he

could give a categorical assurance that there wouldn't be anymore similar incidents like this that might come to light and that he felt unable to

give that assurance.

But, yes, this is an incident 15 years ago. The journalist in question, a well-known broadcaster in this country, Julia Hartley-Brewer said that she

sort is mildly amusing. She did not consider herself as a victim.

And that if had he resigned over that, it would be frankly ridiculous and absurd. I think the problem now is that his resignation, if anything, has

really raised the stakes in this whole scandal because if he as a very senior minister, somebody who was considered a really steadfast steward of

the cabinet feels he has to go over something like that then he has set a precedent.

And other ministers who may now find that there are some incident from their past that has been recounted by the person on the other end of it,

they will also be expected to fall on their swords and that could mean that we will have to see more resignations on this issue.

GORANI: We'll see how that affects the government of Theresa May that is so fragile right now as it. Carole Walker, thanks very much. Always

appreciate having you on the program.

Lot more ahead. Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort back in court today. We'll see what a judge said about his house arrest and

conditions for bail. We'll keep you updated on that after this.


GORANI: Well, first, he suggested he doesn't have much faith in the US justice system. Now, President Donald Trump is demanding the death penalty

for the suspect in the New York terror attack.

Sayfullo Saipov has been charged with federal terrorism offenses in a civilian court. He did not enter a plea during a court appearance on


Now, Mr. Trump fired off several tweets. One reading, "NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8

people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!"

Mr. Trump's intervention in the case could make the job of prosecutors actually more difficult. Let's bring in CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson to

explain. So, why would a prosecutor reading that tweet on Donald Trump's timeline think, oh no, why did he do this?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hala good to see you. Look, the reality is there's a concern in this country that a person is afforded

constitutional rights and liberties.

Now, let's be clear about this. I think that every man, woman and child is extremely outraged by what occurred the other day. It shouldn't happen.

There's no place for terrorism. And anybody who commits such vile acts should and needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Having said that, we have a judicial system that's independent and operates efficiently to prosecute people. And you certainly don't need, just with

regard to proper decorum, comportment and behavior, the person with the biggest bully pulpit in the world otherwise making such a condemnation

because then it runs afoul to those freedoms of fair trial. Fair trial.

And you don't want any defendant to make those claims and potentially have claims like that taken seriously by a court.

GORANI: And, Joey, it's more than that. Bowe Bergdahl, for instance, is about to be sentenced. In his case, the judge said I will consider the

president's comment as mitigating evidence for the appropriate sentence.

In other words, this was candidate Donald Trump called Bergdahl a traitor and other things. And the judge, in this case, is saying because that

could have influenced, potentially, jurors in this case, I'm going to take that into account.

JACKSON: Yes. And that's the dynamic that you certainly have to be careful of when you're the president. And again, everyone needs to be

afforded whatever rights they are afforded under the Constitution, one of which is to have a fair trial.

The prosecutor's job is to prosecute. He will have the defense attorney or attorneys - that is, the person who is alleged to have committed this

terrorist attack who will otherwise protect his interest.

[15:35:07] But when you have, again, the president of the United States weighing in, it impairs a prosecutor's job and otherwise creates issues

that don't need to be there -

GORANI: But, Joey, how do you find an impartial jury when the president of the United States himself has already convicted the suspect and asked for

him to be executed?

JACKSON: It becomes problematic. But in any trial, understand that there is a federal jury that's impaneled. And in the federal system, the judge

asks questions. And you have prosecutors and defense attorneys.

And the objective is to find people who are not otherwise swayed or influenced by anything outside of a courtroom, but could evaluate facts

based upon what they hear.

And if the facts are, as they are alleged to be, with someone just bowling over and running down people in a truck, then they're going to have to be

this person held accountable for their actions.

So, the simple answer, Hala, is you impanel a jury who you ask - have you heard about what the president says? Well, yes, I have. Would that

influence your ability to look at the evidence, examine the evidence, hear testimony and witnesses, or will you just base it upon what the president


And if they can do that, you impanel them and let them decide.

GORANI: And the president also said he would consider sending the suspect to Guantanamo Bay. This case, though, is prosecuted in a civilian court on

federal terrorism charges, which is something that the president essentially - based on the fact that he called the US justice system a joke

probably doesn't think is an effective way of treating him or dealing with this case.

JACKSON: Well, let's say this. Let's talk about the facts. The fact is, is that our federal system of justice, and I practice in federal court, had

a trial there two months ago, is far from a joke.

Since 9/11, the federal government has effectively prosecuted 620 terrorists, right, successfully, as opposed to eight terrorists who have

been prosecuted in non-civilian military tribunals. So, we're well equipped to deal with that.

And I think anybody who practices in federal court - and I say a lot of things about federal prosecutors, who I don't necessarily agree with, but

the fact is, is that they are competent, able, responsible and we have a system that's second to none in the United States with regard to bringing

people to justice.

And I expect, in this case, this person will be brought to justice as well. So, I have a principled disagreement with you, Mr. President.

GORANI: Well, sure, I imagine you would in your job especially. By the way, the suspect waived his Miranda rights. And anybody who watches

American crime shows and justice shows usually hear this. You have the right to remain silent. I mean, that's what you read to a suspect upon his

or her arrest.

In this case, this suspect waived his Miranda rights. So, what's the impact of that on the case?

JACKSON: Well, what happens is his defense attorneys will say that it wasn't voluntarily waived. Of course, as you just mentioned it, people do

have a right not to say anything. And, oftentimes, people capitalize on that right, don't say a word.

So, what, if anything - and we know that this person spoke and was very proud about what they apparently did and their ties and why they did it.

Defense attorneys will make a motion to exclude that, saying it wasn't voluntary, there was pressure, there was coercion, and those statements

cannot be used against him.

That'll be a subject for a hearing, Hala, in federal court in which a judge will decide, did you waive those rights, did you do it knowingly and

intelligently. And if he did, then anything he said can and will be used against him when this case does go to trial, if there's not a plea

agreement, that would preclude or prevent trial.

GORANI: Thanks so much, Joey Jackson. As always, pleasure having you on the program.

JACKSON: Thank you, Hala.

GORANI: Two former Trump campaign officials charged with federal crimes were back in court today, but a judge didn't rule on the bail conditions

for Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who remain under house arrest currently.

She said their attorneys didn't file the proper motions, ordering them back for a hearing next week. The judge also ordered the attorneys to quit

talking to the media, saying this is a criminal trial, not a public relations campaign. That coming from the judge.

CNN's Jessica Schneider is outside the courthouse in Washington. So, Jessica, what happens next now? Both men are under house arrest. What's

the next step?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting to note, one thing that we found out in court today is that this will not be

wrapping up anytime soon, Hala.

The judge has said this will stretch well into 2018. That's because the only time she can - or the earliest time, I should say, that she can

accommodate a trial in this case wouldn't be until April. So, we have a long path ahead.

So, as you asked, what happens from here? Well, as for now, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, they are still under house arrest. That's because the judge

said she wouldn't hear any arguments on easing their terms of release at all until Monday.

She said their attorneys needed to file the proper paperwork, so she could hear the arguments. So, both of them remain under house arrest, both of

them with an unsecured bond. Paul Manafort at $10 million; Rick Gates at $5 million.

[15:40:02] However, it is interesting, the judge did ease restrictions a little bit for Rick Gates. She said that he could leave the house this

coming Saturday and Sunday to see his kids play sports, but he had to agree to wear a GPS monitoring bracelet around his ankle.

So, really, a lot to go here. We're just at the beginning stages. Of course, their initial arraignment was on Monday. Today was supposed to be

a bail hearing. That's gotten pushed to Monday.

But Paul Manafort's lawyers are really being - they're being forceful about their arguments that Paul Manafort is, A, not a danger to the community

and, B, not a flight risk; and as such, the house arrest conditions, it should be lifted.

They say that, in fact, if Paul Manafort were going to flee the country and try to avoid these proceedings, he would've done so already. That's

because, in court papers, his lawyers say, Paul Manafort and his previous lawyers knew all the way back in August that he would be under indictment

even though it wasn't unsealed until just this week.

They say in that amount of time, in the past two or so months, Paul Manafort has gone overseas for business and he's always come back here to

his home in Alexandria, Virginia just in the outskirts of Washington DC.

They cite the fact that he has a wife of 40 years, that he has two daughters and grandkids as a reason as why Paul Manafort would not flee.

So, yes, they're trying to get those restrictions eased. And that will all be heard in court on Monday. But, for now, both of those men are under

those quite restrictive conditions of being under house arrest. Hala?

GORANI: And we learned a few days ago that Paul Manafort has three American passports? I mean, does he still have access to those documents?

If these conditions - the house arrest conditions are eased or he's allowed to leave his house, does he still have his travel documents?

SCHNEIDER: He does not. He has surrendered his passports to the US Marshals. So, again, prosecutors - his attorneys pointing to that as a

reason that he couldn't flee.

It's interesting, though. His attorneys pointed to the government's argument that he did have three passports, three different numbers all

under his name, and said, look, that's not completely odd, that's not completely irregular and, most importantly, it's not illegal.

And it is true that the State Department can approve multiple passports for travelers. So, that isn't something that's illegal and his attorneys

pointed to that as well. Hala?

GORANI: Yes, absolutely. It's not odd to have two. Three is - I've rarely heard of three. But absolutely not illegal and can be approved.

Thanks so much, Jessica Schneider. Really appreciate your reporting.

We know that Russia interfered in the 2016 American presidential election using social media platforms to spread misinformation. Now, officials here

in the UK are asking, what about us? Did it happen here as well?

The country's electoral commission is taking a closer look at the Brexit vote. Also, they're looking at the general election this year. It's

asking Facebook and Twitter to cooperate in an inquiry into whether Russia tried to influence vote results online.

And in the United States, we're now getting a look at some Facebook ads purchased by Russian trolls. Remember, Facebook wasn't releasing the

actual ads.

Well, these ads were featured on the social media platform, both during and after the US presidential election. And now, we're seeing a few thousand

of them, which amounts to 1 percent of these online Russian ads.

And what's interesting as well is that these ads, if you look at them, are on both sides of the same debate sometimes, as though they are designed to

kind of stir the pot and get people angry at each other.

Brian Stelter can join us now. He's been tracking that story from New York. So, finally, we're getting our first look at the actual ads we've

been talking about for so many weeks.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes. A sampling of them released by lawmakers in Washington. There may be plans to release the

entire database in the future.

But I think we can put on screen a couple of the examples. These are ads that are really intended to sow discord and distrust among Americans. And

like you mentioned, sometimes they were on both sides of an issue.

So, a lot of what you're seeing here are anti-Hillary Clinton messages, either explicitly encouraging people to dislike or hate Hillary Clinton or

more subtly to have distrust of her. For example, bringing up emails - alleged email scandals.

But a lot of these ads weren't about Clinton or about President Trump at all. They were about immigration or other divisive topics. I would argue

that a lot of those were tilted toward Trump because, if you have ads on Facebook that are promoting a border wall and discouraging immigration,

that's going to rebound to Trump's benefit.

But the point here is that these Russian trolls were tapping - they were pressing the buttons of Americans through these ads. In some cases, not

even mentioning the candidates at all.

GORANI: That's interesting as well. But of the few that I was able to see, for instance, there was an ad in favor of gun control. Another ad

blaming the government for tolerating groups like the KKK, but shutting down other groups that perhaps were opposed to them in the past,


[15:45:10] But then others, as you mentioned, were sort of, you could argue, more pro-Republican, pro-Trump in the campaign. So, can you make

the argument based on this sample that these were ads designed only to help Donald Trump?

STELTER: No. You're right, not only to help Trump. But I would say, when you're sowing discord and causing people to be unhappy with the status quo,

that's actually a pro-Trump message this time last year because Hillary Clinton was running as an extension of President Obama, continuing the same


So, to the extent that these Russian trolls were saying, America's in trouble, there's chaos, you need to be fearful, that did rebound to Trump's


Now, you mentioned there were ads on both sides of the issues, that seemed to be designed to cause people to get together and fight.

And we know, in one case, there were events created in Texas on either side of a Texas argument about seceding from the state of the union - from the

United States, to try to actually get people to come physically and have protests and get in arguments.

It's not that these attempts really succeeded in getting thousands of people to show up. But it does show how sophisticated these attempts were.

GORANI: Well, you'll remember, in Texas as well, a bunch of demonstrators showed up at a place that didn't exist. It was an event organized by a

Russian troll factory.

So, you know the Collins Dictionary Word of the Year this year? Do you know it, Brian?

STELTER: I don't. Tell me.

GORANI: It's actually two words. Maybe you can guess. Troll farm? I don't know. What could it be?

GORANI: Almost, almost. Let's listen to the president and you'll know of the back of this. Listen.



I like real news, not fake news. You're fake news.

These guys, the fake news.


GORANI: The word of the year is "fake news." Collins says the use of the term, Brian, skyrocketed by 365 percent this year.

STELTER: Then maybe it's time to retire the word. Maybe it's time to give it up. There's an increasing view here in the US, among experts in

journalism and in media, that this term has been exploited by President Trump and other politicians, has been redefined by these politicians

against its original meaning, and it's time to change the word.

This time last year, fake news was agreed to mean totally made-up stories designed to deceive you. Now, President Trump uses it as a slur against

real news organizations. So, probably, it's better to be more specific in our terms.

When I talk about the Russian troll farms that were producing fake stories, that was really misinformation, disinformation, propaganda. Maybe I have

to stop using the term fake news now.

GORANI: Yes. Now, this has just become something you throw at anyone whose message you don't agree with sometimes.


GORANI: Thanks very much, Brian Stelter. Really appreciate having you on.

And don't forget, you can check out our Facebook page, No fake news zone there. We'll be right back

with more.


[15:50:16] GORANI: Well, there was a sense of the past meeting the present in London today, when the prime ministers of Israel and Britain

commemorated a landmark piece of Middle East history.

It has now been one century since the Balfour Declaration. A letter sent by the British government to support the establishment of a national home

in Palestine for the Jewish people.

It may have been one simple letter, but the consequences of that piece of text echo around the Middle East to this day.

Ian Lee has this look at what the Balfour Declaration means in 2017.


IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's a royal reveal of sorts in Bethlehem. A queen of England impersonator unveiling new Banksy artwork.

A master of ceremonies reads a note from the artist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We hope you will join us in clapping unto her Royal Highness unveil a special message from us to you, the Palestinian people.

LEE: Etched in the West Bank wall, err - sorry, ER, a reference to Queen Elizabeth. A dystopian party outside Banksy's Walled Off Hotel in

Bethlehem. Children from the town's refugee camps invited for tea and cake.

(on-camera): For people outside of Israel and the Palestinian territories, the Balfour Declaration might seem quite obscure. But not here in the

region. Here, it's relevant and they take it quite seriously.

As a Palestinian, what does the Balfour Declaration mean to you?

WISSAM SALSAA, PALESTINIAN: It made a catastrophe in the Middle East. Balfour was a very generous man that offered the land that does not belong

to him. The whole United Kingdom should not celebrate the Balfour Declaration. They should apologize to the Palestinians.

RUWAIDA AL AZZAH, 13-YEAR-OLD PALESTINIAN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The declaration to me is illegal and it's against Palestine. I don't believe

in it and I will fight it until the last day of my life.

LEE: To understand the significance of the Balfour Declaration for Israelis, what better place to go than Balfour's school where they are

celebrating with pageantry and songs.

(voice-over): OK. So, there's a little theatrical license on display. But this lighthearted performance gets to the root meaning of the

declaration for Israelis.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a Jew, I can have my own state, and so we feel secure. So, it was very important because it was the first step towards a

Jewish state.

LEE: The children act out the long road to statehood. Later, they tell me the declaration supported the Jewish diaspora's fundamental questions of

home and safety.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Balfour declaration means to me a lot because it just made me live here, in Israel.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there wasn't this declaration, I won't be here standing now. Maybe I won't be born even.

LEE: And it's not just Israelis and Palestinians marking this anniversary.

(on-camera): A group of people from Britain, some of whom are behind me, trekked over 3,000 kilometers from London to Jerusalem to condemn the


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, we're doing this walk 100 years later to show just how sorry we are for the Balfour Declaration and we do not agree with what

England did at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They should, at this point in time, find some way to right the wrongs that continually happen to all of the Palestinian people.

LEE (voice-over): So, a short letter, just over 100 words, continuing to reverberate 100 years later. For better or for worse, its legacy defining

a region.

Ian Lee, CNN, Jerusalem.


GORANI: Coming up, the king of pride rock meeting Queen B. Beyonce joins the all-star cast of the "Lion King" remake.


[15:55:38] GORANI: It's the entertainment industry's new circle of life. First, the classic animated film becomes a Broadway smash hit and then gets

the live-action treatment. Up next, the "Lion King."


GORANI: Well, there are some pretty big A-listers in the remake. Beyonce, Donald Glover as Simba, and the iconic James Earl Jones returns as Mufasa.

The film is set to debut in 2019.

And finally, this hour, imagine being 12 and seeing the Eiffel Tower for the first time. You're so excited, you write a poem about it and send it

to the president of France.

And then, the president writes back. That's exactly what happened to a young British girl named Sophie. She sent a poem to Emmanuel Macron. Her

tribute on the left here. Let's put it up, called the landmark "elegant and tall with her head in the clouds."

Macron was moved to write his own poem in reply, originally in French, and from the point of view of the tower itself. He said, "so few poets these

days sing the praises of my Parisian soul."

Sophie received Macron's poetic response right on her 13th birthday. It's pretty awesome actually.

I'm Hala Gorani. This has been THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. Thanks for watching. Do stay with CNN. "The Lead" with Jake Tapper is next.