Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Lawyer Appears In Court Over FBI Raid Seizures; Cohen's Mystery Client Raveled As Sean Hannity; Some Caribbean Immigrants Could Face Deportation From U.K.; Labour MP On Windrush Immigrants; Macron Facing Criticism For Ordering Strikes; Netflix's Mega Year. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 16, 2018 - 15:00   ET




HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. We are live from Paris on this Monday. I'm Hala Gorani.

Tonight, the president's long time personal attorney in court. We will have the very latest from New York. Michael Cohen, there he is entering

the court house facing a judge today.

Also, Comey tells all. The former FBI director says Donald Trump is not morally fit to be president.

And British and French parliaments are debating Syria today, but the debate is coming after the air strikes. We'll have the latest on that.

Right now, Donald Trump's longtime lawyer and friend, Michael Cohen, finds himself in a Manhattan courtroom. A federal judge is trying to decide on

what to do with the materials that the FBI seized from Cohen's home, office and a hotel room in a raid last week.

The president's lawyers are fighting to keep the Cohen files out of investigators hands to allow the president to determine which documents can

permanently be withheld because of attorney/client privilege.

Adding to the tension, the arrival today of porn star, Stormy Daniels at the court. There she is wearing pink ensemble. She says Cohen paid her

$130,000 to keep quiet about an affair she had with Donald Trump in 2006.

Let's bring in CNN legal analyst to look into all of this. Now, one of the urgent that just flashed on my phone, Joey Jackson, is that Michael Cohen

disclosed in court that the client who requested to remain unnamed was Sean Hannity who is a Fox News presenter and provocateur and I guess, their

whole argument is that Michael Cohen has other clients and they should benefit from attorney/client privilege here.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, and that may very well be a viable argument. Good to see you as always. It depends on what the client

list looks like. Remember what happened on Friday. They are making that argument, which is a very good argument, that we should not be ordered to

turn over information.

Well, they have the information already, but that the information they have should not be used if it's privileged. That's true. Attorneys have a

privilege where you sitdown and in the event that you establish an attorney-client relationship, because you want, lawyers do, want clients to

be candid, to be truthful, to give all information, that's protected.

No one ever gets to hear that and so, I understand, and I get the argument. The further argument, Hala, is that (inaudible) we don't rely upon them and

how could we rely upon them, they're full of prosecutors.

And while they may not be directly related to the investigation, how will you trust them, maybe a special master should be appointed as a defense of

arguments to evaluate this information or maybe you judge should look at it in camera.

But I get and understand why Sean Hannity or any other client who doesn't to have his stature or notoriety would not want to be outed on a client

list. So, they will make the argument before the judge.

The judge will determine whether, A, attorney/client privilege attaches, B, whether there were any exceptions here to that attorney-client privilege

and, C, if so, whether this government gets to use this information or whether they don't. That's the essence of this hearing.

GORANI: So, the judge needs to decide whether or not this material seize can be fully used in the investigation into Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen

is under criminal investigation. So, the judge is making that decision based on what exactly?

JACKSON: Well, what happens -- that's absolutely right. The judge is determining whether the information that the government seized when they

had a warrant that was lawfully obtained, right. It was signed off on.

But now that you have the warrant and you go and you exercise as hotel and his home and his office and his lock boxes, whether if that's privileged,

it should not come in or should not, you know, should have come in or should be excluded.

And so, when you are under criminal investigation and the government wants to use information against you, it should not be information that otherwise

they should not have. Remember this, although the criminal investigation at this point we know is federal in nature, right, and that's significant.

And I mentioned it because the president has something called a pardon power, which he can wave a wand and absolve you of all sin. Still I

believe Michael Cohen could have a problem because a lot of what he is charged with, Hala, could be charged as state crimes by the Manhattan

attorney's office or by the state attorney general.

[15:05:05] GORANI: That the president cannot pardon. The president cannot pardon someone who is convicted on state charges. What about Stormy? What

was she doing?

JACKSON: I think that's more or less a side show. That's symbolic in nature. Remember how we got to this point, how we got to this point is the

fact that there was this agreement. Stormy Daniels, of course, someone who is alleged to have been involved with the president sexually.

There's this hush agreement wherein she can't share anything regarding her relationship with the president. She's paid $130,000 in order to be quiet.

Then the president says, I don't know who she is, didn't have an affair with her. Don't know what you are talking about.

So, she's just there because this, of course, started as a result of her. Michael Avenatti, her attorney being very aggressive is there to

demonstrate to the president, I mean business and we want to be heard.

And so, she just there, she won't be asked questions. She's not a part of this hearing. I think it's symbolic to let the president know that we're

on your case.

GORANI: How does it change things that we now have the name of other Michael Cohen clients such as Fox News' Sean Hannity.

JACKSON: Well, we don't know how it changes things yet and simply because Sean Hannity was on the list, it doesn't necessarily mean that he qualifies

as a client. Now, let me be clear. You can be a client to a lawyer, but maybe it is that, you know, it's not a privileged communication.

They are trying to establish privileged communications, right? Those are the things that should be exempted from view. If you have a business

dealing with someone that's outside of attorney/client privilege, that's not protected.

If you are acting on someone's capacity, but it's not really as a lawyer relationship, it's simply as an associate, that's not protected. So, we

don't know yet. I think the judge will examine the list of people that Michael Cohen is dealing with. Can we classify that list as a

client/attorney relationship?

Number three, what's the nature of the communication between you and that client for which they should be privileged? And if any exemptions to the

privilege apply, we know that there are a number of exemptions.

One being crime fraud in the event that you engage in any criminality or have a discussion about criminality, Hala, with a client, guess what, that

doesn't receive the protection of privilege and the government can freely use that at will.

GORANI: But lastly, what about communication between Michael Cohen and his longtime client, the president of the United States, Donald Trump? What

about all of that material that may have been seized by the FBI?

JACKSON: Yes, I mean, that's -- obviously, that's very significant. The FBI is going to be evaluating what if any communication was there. But

remember, that in and of itself is not necessarily privileged, right?

If he was having conversations with the president, was it in the context of an attorney/client relationship? And remember what the end game is here,

Hala. Regardless of what communications he had with Trump and what were they and what was it about and were they legal, were they illegal, what

were they doing, remember the end game.

If you squeeze Cohen and find out things he was involved in of the illegal variety -- say if the FBI has nothing in their seizure here that relates to

any crime as it relates to the president, there may be other things Cohen knows.

The end game is to charge him and then offer him some type of immunity so that he can talk regarding the president and what he knows. Again,

generally speaking, he would say, I'm not talking to you. I have nothing to say because I'm going to get a presidential pardon

Goes back to what we said before, though, if there are state crimes involved, Manhattan District attorney's office or the state attorney

general, now he has real exposure. I'm interested to know what deals if any would be cut with the Manhattan DA's Office or the state attorney

general, my former office.

The reality is if they want him to talk, they will come up with ways and offers to give him to talk. When you have a family, when you are facing

jeopardy, believe me, could you be loyal all you want, but when you look at years in jail if there's criminality, people -- more people talk than don't

talk. I tell that to you as a defense attorney and former prosecutor. That's the reality.

GORANI: Well, you have experience in that -- you have experience in that domain. Joey Jackson, thanks very much.

Obviously, a reminder of how absolutely unusual this is here with the FBI conducting a raid in the office and home of an attorney of the president of

the United States, no less. While, the president and his legal advisers have one eye on that courtroom in New York, the are watching the former

director of the FBI with the other.

James Comey was interviewed on national at television on Sunday, delivering a blistering rebuke of President Trump. He's on a book tour. He is

speaking to journalists. His first appearance was this weekend. Here is CNN's Kaitlan Collins with a wrap-up.


JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I don't think he is medically unfit to be president. He is morally unfit.

[15:10:08] KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER (voice-over): Fired FBI Director James Comey unleashing a scathing criticism of President

Trump's character. Blasting him unfit for office and a stain on those around him.

COMEY: A person who sees morally equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they are pieces of meat, who lies constantly

about matters big and small, and insists the American people believe it. That person is not fit to be president of the United States on moral


COLLINS: In his first interview since the president fired him last May, Comey reveals he thinks the president might be vulnerable to Russian


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think the Russians have something on Donald Trump?

COMEY: It strikes me as unlikely. I would say with high confidence with any other president I dealt with, but I can't. It's possible.

COLLINS: Comey reflecting on the February meeting when he says President Trump asked him to drop the investigation his former national security

adviser, Michael Flynn.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why didn't you say I can't discuss this? You are doing something improper.

COMEY: Maybe, although, he didn't know he was doing something improper. Why did he kick out the attorney general and the vice president of the

United States and the leaders of the intelligence community, and why am I alone if he doesn't know the nature of the request?

COLLINS: Trump denies he made the request, but Comey believes it bears weight in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was President Trump obstructing justice?

COMEY: Possibly. It's certainly some evidence of obstruction of Justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What will it mean if President Trump tries to fire Robert Mueller?

COMEY: It would, I hope, set off alarm bells, that this is his most serious attack yet on the rule of law.

COLLINS: But when asked whether Mr. Trump should be impeached?

COMEY: I hope not because I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook. People in this

country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values. Impeachment in a way would short circuit that.

COLLINS: Comey comparing the behavior the president's behavior to that of a mob boss saying he repeatedly demanded loyalty, most notably at a one-on-

one dinner.

COMEY: He said I expect loyalty. I need loyalty. I just stared at him and this narrative with myself inside saying don't you move. Don't you

dare move. Don't even blink.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not say no?

COMEY: I think because I was caught totally by surprise.

COLLINS: Trump denies he ever said that. Comey says President Trump dominated the conversation talking about himself whole time.

COMEY: Constant series of assertions about the inauguration crowd. His crowd was bigger than that of Barack Obama's first inauguration. That is

not true. That is not a perspective, view. That is just a lie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you are listening, are you thinking President Trump is a liar?


COLLINS: Comey recalling his infamous handshake from Trump in the White House shortly after the inauguration. He says even his family knew how

uncomfortable he was.

COMEY: I know that is my "Oh, no" face.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But that's not exactly (inaudible).

COMEY: I don't want to say that on television.

COLLINS: Comey revealing how he felt when he discovered he had been fired.

COMEY: I don't remember being angry. I thought it was crazy to fire me. I'm leading the investigation of Russian influence and particularly whether

anyone in the Trump orbit coordinated and conspired with the Russians. That makes no sense at all.

COLLINS: Comey also reflecting on his controversial decision to inform Congress that he was reopening the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation

just days before the election.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was it like to be James Comey in the last ten days of that campaign after you sent the letter?

COMEY: It sucked. I walked around vaguely sick to my stomach and feeling beaten down. I felt I was totally alone and everybody hated me. There

wasn't a way out because it really was the right thing to do.

COLLINS: But the fired FBI director adamantly defending his handling of the Clinton probe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you knew that letter would have elected Donald Trump, you would have still sent it?

COMEY: I would. Down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent force to the American life. If I ever start considering whose

political fortunes affected by a decision, we're done.


GORANI: And that was a wrap-up of the James Comey interview which aired live on American television on Sunday evening. For the White House

reaction to James Comey's interview, let's bring in CNN's Jeremy Diamond. We've heard quite a bit from the White House following this -- Jeremy.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right we have. We even heard from the president before the interview actually aired with the

president taking to Twitter to issue a sort of pre-buttal to James Comey's assertions. His book has been reported on now for several days.

And last night, we heard from James Comey with some of, you know, rehashing some of these allegations that he has made against the president, including

his claim that he believes that there was obstruction of justice or at least evidence -- possible evidence of obstruction of justice when the

president asked James Comey to let go of the Michael Flynn investigation.

[15:15:13] We saw the president this morning again taking to Twitter to continue to criticize James Comey. That was it we saw that one tweet from

the president this morning. Most of the folks who are close to the president, close to this White House believe that there could still be more

to come from President Trump on James Comey.

We know, of course, that he has repeatedly been angered by the FBI director's public assertions of the two of them and clearly the president

may have more to say on this front. For now, though, most of the response has been handled by outside surrogates also White House Advisor Kellyanne

Conway calling James Comey a spin artist. And the Republican National Committee has already launched a website calling James Comey a liar.

GORANI: Just quick one on the Michael Cohen court appearance. How much is the president paying attention to that? This is his personal attorney.

He's is in a situation he needs lawyers. His home and office were raided by the FBI. Is the president concerned at all?

DIAMOND: Well, we know that the president has been extremely angered by this FBI raid on Michael Cohen's personal office, hotel room, the president

suggesting that it was an attack on our country just last week with some pretty fiery language.

But we also know that his lawyers are concerned about this probe, which was referred by the special counsel, but is being handled by U.S. attorneys in

New York. So clearly, there could be some damaging information uncovered here.

What's important to note is not every communication between the president and his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, would necessarily fall under that

attorney/client privilege. It would only be certain communications when it's about legal advice, when it's about advising him on specific matters.

But there could be other communications, other documents that would be caught up in this, which have been a cause for concern for the president

and his team of attorneys.

GORANI: All right. A lot of this to worry about, be concerned about and pay attention to at the White House in the last few days. Jeremy Diamond,

thanks very much, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

Still to come tonight, the British prime minister is defending her decision to strike Syria. Anger here, in France, too, over why President Macron

authorized action without consulting lawmakers. We'll have that story coming up next.


GORANI: It was the right thing to do. The words of the British Prime Minister Theresa May. Today, she defended her decision to authorizes on

Syria over the weekend. Some lawmakers are angry she didn't get approval from parliament, she didn't consult them. The U.K. acted alongside the

U.S. and France.

[15:20:09] Mrs. May says the strikes were to punish Syria's regime for an apparent gas attack. Here is what she told lawmakers earlier today.


THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We have acted because it is in our national interest. It is in our national interest to prevent the further

use of chemical weapons in Syria and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should not be used. For we cannot allow the

use of chemicals weapons to become normalized either within Syria, on the streets of the U.K. or elsewhere. So, we have not done this because

President Trump asked us to do so. We have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do and we are not alone.


GORANI: Well, here in France, there was similar anger from lawmakers over why President Macron didn't consult his parliament before striking Syria.

We can discuss that with Jim Bittermann who is here, our senior international correspondent in Paris. For the U.K. reaction, we will go

live to Phil Black, who is standing by for us in London.

Jim, I want to start with you. President Macron is using his authority as president, which is quite unusual in this country or engage militarily

facing his country in these strikes.

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. It is unusual. It's under the Constitution, Article 35, he has the right to do

that. But he has to organize a debate within the parliament within a few days after he puts military forces on the line. It's still a debate.

It's not really a vote up and down. In fact, he has four months before that happens. If there was a military action that goes on for another four

months, then the parliament would be engage and could vote up and down on the military action.

But the parliament today was voicing a great deal of anger. A lot of paying were saying, why didn't he consult the parliament first? Why

weren't they informed ahead of time? There was discussion about this idea that the U.N. did not sanction the actions in Syria.

That there was no U.N. Security Council vote, there was no weapons inspector report, all of these things Macron seemed to jump the gun on

along with the other leaders.

GORANI: Inspectors are on the ground now. Phil Black in London, why didn't Theresa May ask lawmakers before she committed her country

militarily in this way?

PHIL BLACK, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: She said in this case, Hala, it just wasn't practical. She said she could share with

parliamentarians all of the secret intelligence that was guiding her decision making. Also, she has to act quickly because needed to ensure

operational security, safety -- maximize the safety of the British military personnel taking part in the operation as well.

So, she said on this occasion, it just simply wasn't right to follow that convention. It's not law here, but it's been political convention that

prime ministers come to parliament first and ask for permission. She said this case it wasn't the right thing to do.

GORANI: We know, Jim Bittermann, when David Cameron asked lawmakers after the first chemical attack that we know of, they declined to support the

idea of the U.K. Perhaps the prime minister in this case was concerned that a similar thing could happen. What about here, though, if he had put

it to a vote, President Macron, would he have gotten support from the French population and lawmakers?

BITTERMANN: The lawmakers, yes. The French population maybe no. That's another story. The last time there was any -- other day. Polling of ack

about two years ago. Point, with ISIS attacks going on, public opinion was (inaudible) favor, slightly in favor of some kind (inaudible) French

intervention in Syria.

Now, I'm not so sure, after this attack. But I think that that was one of the exercises that Macron was on last night when he had this interview

pretty scheduled, but this interview last night, he wants to make it clear that there was good reason behind it.

And the U.N. charter, that the Syrians had violated Resolution 2118, which was the resolution passed in 2013 when there was gas used and they were

supposed to get rid of all of their weapons under that resolution. They didn't.

GORANI: Well, there were previous, recorded instances of gas attacks in Syria that weren't met with the same reaction. It's interesting to see how

Macron has positioned himself. Thanks so much, Jim Bittermann there for that reporting and Phil Black at the Houses of Parliament as well. Thanks

to both of you.

Meanwhile, today, the Trump administration and British cyber officials are issuing a rare joint alert. They are warning that Russian hackers have

launched a militias cyber offensive. That's a tongue twister.

[15:25:08] Let's get details from our Sam Kiley, live for us in Moscow. What they are saying is that this is quite extensive. It could in fact

target big installations as well as people's homes, domestic routers in small businesses. Tell us more.

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It's a completely unprecedented statement jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, the FBI and the U.K.'s national cybersecurity censor, which is the cyber par of GCHQ, the massive spy agency there that works closely with

the United States.

Now, they have extraordinary statement saying that for the first time, they are specially naming Russia as being engaged in malicious -- that they

called maliclzus cyber activity. It's all written in -- they mean cyber war, cyberattack.

They are saying the attacks are infrastructure, the very fabric of moderniziving is under attack they say Russia. This, these attacks are

intended to support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain on for future, offensive operations.

The current state of U.S. and U.K. network devices coupled with Russian government campaign to exploit these devices threaten our safety, security

and economic well-being. It's quite a long statement.

British National Cyber Security Center, he first and he is the first time that Russia has been named effectively as the energy behind these attacks.

These attacks have been around some time usually referred as emanating from Eastern Europe or unknown entities. This is a direct accusation of what

effectively is an act of cyber war and a request to people from small businesses all the way through to be alert it -- Hala.

GORANI: But has this had any impact? It's ongoing, is there measurable impact? Should we be looking at hospitals in France, should we be looking

banking routers of big banks in Germany? How are we mearing the impact of this what they say is such a huge cyberattack on these big installations?

KILEY: But they are giving any detail. This is a warning. This is a warning saying everybody is under attack. This is the agenda of the

Russians. There are some descriptions as to how it's being conducted using what they call spoofing tacks. To click on a funny video and in fact, sows

a worm or something into your system that can be exploited later on.

There are large ways of doing this. They don't come up with a measure of the affect. Think of this in the second world war text as the air raid

siren. The bombs are not dropping yet, but this is an air raid siren being sounded in cyberspace.

The fact that they refer to the threats to safety, security and economic well-being, this has been scenario in terms of cyber conflict that experts

have been most worried about coming to fruition.

I think it's extraordinary that finger of the operation at Russia. It's an ongoing operation that they're asking everybody to get involved in the

defense against.

GORANI: Sam Kiley in Moscow, thanks very much for joining us.

A lot more to come tonight, they were welcome to build roads and take care of the sick in Britain after World War II, but where's the lifeline now?

If thousands of Caribbean immigrants and their families, some of whom are being deported. We'll be right back.


[15:30:01] HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: I'm Hala Gorani. We're live in Paris. Returning now to Michael Cohen's day in court. Michael

Cohen is, of course, Donald Trump's first law attorney. And a judge is deciding what to do with the material that the FBI seize from his home, his

office and then hotel room last week. Let's go live to Brynn Gingras who's outside the court room in New York.

So, what have we heard in this case so far today, Brynn?

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that hearing is still going on right now. But really, just surprising and shocking moment happened in

court really about less than minutes ago. Just to back up a little bit for your viewers, essentially before this judge rules on whether or not those

documents can be viewed by Michael Cohen and his attorneys or the U.S. attorneys can go forward with their investigation to view those documents.

She wanted Michael Cohen to turn over a list of all of his clients. Now, that list was given to the judge this morning prior to this hearing. And

there were three notable names on it. One was, of course, Trump which we knew that Michael Cohen had dealings with Trump. A second one was Elliott

Brody, who was head of the Republican National Convention who Michael Cohen negotiated a $1.6 million payout to a Playboy model that he impregnated.

And then there was a third name that was remaining unnamed when Michael Cohen handed over this list. Well, in court, a shocking moment when the

judge ordered Michael Cohen's attorneys to release that name, and that name is Sean Hannity. Of course, the host of Fox news. So this big question

arose of, why is Michael Cohen having any dealings with Sean Hannity?

Now, we have been reporting according to Gloria Borger who's gotten information from a source who knows the relationship between Cohen and Sean

Hannity who said that Sean Hannity merely asked Cohen for legal advice. Actually, there wasn't even a bill that was sent to Cohen. It was merely

for legal advice, and that's where third party matter. But certainly it was a shocking moment in court as this hearing continues. We're still

getting more and more information out of a very unprecedented and incredible information out of this hearing.

GORANI: So, do we know when the judge will rule whether or not Michael Cohen and his attorneys can see the material that the FBI seized?

GINGRAS: Well, we're expecting the judge to make a ruling on this today. That's what they're going through right now. It's a painful -- painstaking

process, as you can imagine for this judge who has to really decide, is this going against attorney/client privilege? And then to make matters

even more complicated, Hala, was that President Trump filed a motion last night by his attorneys here in New York asking if he and his attorneys

would be the first one to view those documents. So the judge also has to make a decision about that. So there's a lot going on in court, a lot

being revealed in court. And hopefully, we'll have an answer by 5:00 today Eastern Time.

[15:35:01] GORANI: All right. Thanks very much, Brynn Gingras. We'll be following the story and getting back to you as soon as we hear more.

Thanks so much.

The British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, said I'm sorry today for the treatment from her government against people belonging to what is termed

the Windrush generation. Now, who were the Windrush generation? They're immigrants from former British colonies who came after World War II and

didn't have paperwork in many cases. And so they are struggling to prove their citizenship and some of them have been deported. Isa Soares has our



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today is the arrival of more than 400 Jamaicans.

ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They were the first group of immigrants to arrive in the U.K. at the request of the British government.

And they came to help rebuild the country post-war. This was June 22, 1948.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where do you come from?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you brought your children with you?




SOARES: Over the next 20 plus years, half a million commonwealth citizens built British lives, worked British jobs and paid British taxes, beginning

an era of multi-culturalism in Great Britain. Anthony Ryan came was one of them. He came here from Jamaica in 1965, when he was just 8 years of age.

Recently, he's been detained twice in an immigration removal center.

ANTHONY RYAN, WINDRUSH IMMIGRANT: Every time I go down is like (INAUDIBLE) today am I going to be locked up somewhere? And after four months they

gave me. This is a nightmare.

SOARES: Like Anthony, many of the Windrush generation are now living with a threat of deportation this after the British government recently

tightened migration rules, leading many scrambling for documents and paperwork to prove they are here legally.

GUY HEWITT, BARBADOS HIGH COMMISSIONER TO THE U.K.: Some have been shut out of system which means they're denied the right to work, access to

government services, including free health care that they have contributed to. Some have been detained and some are still in detention. And others

have been deported to countries that are no longer their home.

SOARES: It's an injustice that has David Lammy seizing, not just as a British member of parliament but also as a proud son of a Windrush


DAVID LAMMY, BRITISH LABOUR MP: We need a proper apology. We need a very, very clear amnesty today for all of those people. People who paid for

lawyers need to be reimbursed and compensated for their loss. We need to understand how my people have been deported, how many people have been

detained, how many people have been denied access to the NHS in the United Kingdom that fall into this category.

SOARES: Windrush square was built to commemorate the first arrival of immigrants from the Caribbean to the U.K. back in 1948. Seventy years

later, many of them are facing uncertainty and wondering whether this is a place they can call home. Isa Soares, CNN, London.


GORANI: Well, joining us now for more on the turmoil that these immigrants face is Labour MP. He moved to the U.K. as a child from Pakistan and he

worked as a laborer, a bus driver, and police officer before becoming an attorney and member of the parliament. Thanks for being with us.

Do we know the numbers here of people affected by deportation -- potential deportation? What kind of numbers are we talking about here?

AFZAL KHAN, BRITISH LABOUR MP: Well, we don't have any idea of the numbers at the moment. We've asked those questions to the Home Secretary even

today. And there seems to be a confusion. One minister is saying even some people have been deported. She's saying she doesn't know. But

clearly, there are people. We have some numbers in the sense that people have contacted us. I have a number of constituents who contacted me.

There are organizations who deal with this area as well. They've also been lobbying us. But the government actually is the one that have been doing

it. This is horrific, actually. These are the people who not only came to rebuild after the war, but their families actually contributed hundreds of

thousands commonwealth citizens in our armies to actually win this war as well. And then, of course, in all different walks of life they have been

working here. And the treatment they're getting is appalling.

GORANI: So the government is apologizing. It's acknowledging that this is mistakes were made. The people who have been deported, are they -- can

they come back to Britain? Can this right -- can this wrong be corrected?

KHAN: Well, of course, I think that needs to happen. These were people who are U.K. and colony citizens that we have deported. And then they have

contributed to taxes here, improving things here. Of course, they need to be brought back. And we have to get -- make sure they get compensations.

And we need to make sure that this whole thing stops, those who are in the detention, they need to be released a well. And we need to make sure that

this mistake doesn't happen, right? And we have rules which prevent this happening. Because in 2014, the government actually mold this protection.

So they need to bring such instrument now to bring back this protection.

[15:00:17] GORANI: OK. But you don't know if those who are deported currently can come back? That this is not something that's been

established yet?

KHAN: Well, I think they will have to. There's no other option available. Today even the home secretary said what she wasn't sure was whether or not

people had been deported. But we know earlier on the immigration said there had been people. So clearly, we need to bring the clarity there.

And if there has been people, then those people need to be brought back.

GORANI: And the issues that those who were mistakenly asked to leave, that there was an issue with paperwork, that sometimes as children they came

from ex-British colonies on their parent's passports, they thought they were British citizens, that they didn't really need to prove it and then

they arrived at a situation where they were having a hard time with the paperwork? Is that what happened?

KHAN: Yes. No. The difficulty, I think goes back to 2014 when they removed this protection. Because once you know that they were here before

'73 and then they have right to be here. And that I think is the difficulty. Without any debate, they remove this protection and the result

of hostile environment produced making others to do their work, the doctors, and the hospitals and people where they work, even for the renting

and then through this they're getting caught up and then people are basically being deported. That's the problem.

GORANI: All right. Member of Parliament, Afzal Khan, thanks so much for joining us from London live there on this story that's been making big

headlines in the U.K. We appreciate your time this evening.

Check us out on Facebook. And I'm on Twitter, @halagorani.

Still to come tonight, Macron under pressure from his own parliament over those strikes on Syria. We speak to a retired French general about why

France took a lead role in this military action that is not popular with everybody. We'll be right back.


GORANI: Let's get back to those strikes on Syria over the weekend. The French president, Emmanuel Macron took a leading role in coordinating

those. While he met, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, lawmakers were busy debating the strikes, of course, after the fact. Just like in

the U.K., there is some concern in parliament in France over their leader authorizing the military action without the approval of lawmakers.

Joining me now is Jean-Paul Palomeros. He's a retired general of the French air force. He also held the position of supreme allied commander

transformation, which is under NATO. Thanks, general, for being with us. What did you make of the fact that in quite an unusual move for a French

president, there was no seeking of authorization or support from parliament? What did you make of that?

[15:45:15] GEN. JEAN-PAUL PALOMEROS (RET.), FRENCH AIR FORCE: There is a clear chain of command in France. The president is the military chief.

He's the chief of the forces. So he has not to go to the parliament. And not a single president did that. But he has to report in a certain way to

the parliament. So it allows us to react very fast. Let's remember in 2011, when we went to Mali, there was kind of an urgency. Because a few

hours later, it would have been too late. We mention the president going to the parliament --

GORANI: Where was the urgency here? It was a pre-announced strike days before by the president the United States. I mean, we were following live

on Twitter as he practically told us what he was going to do.

PALOMEROS: I think the other leaders followed our president. In 2013, we didn't strike because mainly in the U.S. and in the U.K., the presidents or

the prime minister went to the parliament. So perhaps it took some lessons out of that.

GORANI: Also, President Obama decided not to.

PALOMEROS: Yes. That was another time. But five years later, we have to go back. So when you don't do the job at once, you have to come back


GORANI: Is this going to "do the job" though?

PALOMEROS: Well, at least for the purpose for which this operation was designed. Just to tell the world and to tell Bashar that enough is enough.

You cannot fool them. The conventions that you have signed, which was the case for Syria with 191 countries. This is not acceptable, no longer.

GORANI: But I'll tell you what most of our viewers would ask you tonight. They would say, so it's fine as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons?

He's been using barrel bombs and bombing civilian areas for many years causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. But is the western world saying

to Bashar al-Assad, just keep going but don't use chemical weapons?

PALOMEROS: So we have two stories. This is true, a very good question, if I may say so. Because here, we are looking on the future. If we allow

this kind of a dictator to use chemical weapons, that will give a lot of ideas to others. So we have to -- the weapons of mass destruction have

been under scrutiny. We have a consensus on nuclear, on bio and on chemical for a long time, since the Second World War. And we want to keep

that. Because if you don't keep that --

GORANI: So it's more about preserving that world order than really it is about protecting Syrian civilians. Let's be honest.

PALOMEROS: It protects well civilian, because when you use chemical weapons, you can kill. Even people and the shelter in the basement of


GORANI: One of the things that was interesting in President Macron's interview on BSN TV yesterday is he made this assertion that he convinced

Donald Trump to stay for the quote "long-term" in Syria. The White House said, hang on. We never said that. President Macron dialed back a little

bit the rhetoric saying, well, neither of us is going to stay long term. Why do you think he made that pronouncement? It's an interesting thing to

say in an interview.

PALOMEROS: Yes. I think first and foremost, the presidents -- the two presidents and the prime minister, the U.K. they managed to come together.

And that's a great fuse. The three are together to achieve something together. So it was not easy at all. Because you got a lot of different

perception. So we did that together. Together, we were stronger, more credible.

Now, in terms of dealing with the future of Syria, this is -- we need to be involved. The U.S., France, the U.K., this is still our story. But we

will obviously restore our military forces once the fight against terrorism is over. That we are not occupation forces.

GORANI: No, I get that. Of course, it was stated actually quite clearly that the mission is the defeat of ISIS and other terrorist forces. But

this is leaving the country to Russia, is it not? Russia basically -- and Iran.

PALOMEROS: This is the facts. Iran, Russia, a little bit of Turkey, so we have to cope, we have to deal, we have to negotiate, we have to speak to

those countries. And they must understand that we are still part of the game. The three allies together. My perception is that we need to come

together to achieve something. EU, our countries and the U.S. coming together with a political solution this time, which is much , much harder.

[15:50:12] GORANI: But a political solution, you need Russia, you need Iran.

PALOMEROS: Of course.

GORANI: You need -- you have militia operating, Hezbollah. You have Iranian as well republican guard in the country.

PALOMEROS: Everything is interlinked.

GORANI: This war, -- this war, if you look at it -- if you look at it really from a bird's eye view, is nowhere near a political solution. The

battlefields is still very hot here. There are many questions which are very much interlinked. The world is interactive, if I may say so. So we

have to focus as well on Iran. And you know the position of France on Iran. We must keep the nuclear deal. This is absolutely crucial. We

don't want the jack out of the box. We want really to keep that to stabilize the country. We are discussing with Saudi Arabia, which is a

great player in this part of the world as well. And perhaps step by step hopefully we will come to an agreement which will allow populations to go

back to Syria. We must look into the future. We must find peace agreement for the future.

GORANI: Although the populations who have gone back, some of them have reported that they've been targeted. I mean, there's so many

complications. And one wonders with this complexity of players and of different moving parts where you even begin. Because you're a military

man. But most often, when I speak to military men, they are more likely to tell me that the solution is diplomatic in the end than it is military.

PALOMEROS: The military is useful. I mean, if you don't get the military tool in your inventory, then you are stuck to be a peacekeeper or to look

the world from the outside. No, I think that we need a new vision, new perception and something new players.

GORANI: Well, General Palomeros, I hope that happens as well. Thanks for your analysis and your contribution this evening on the program. We

appreciate it.

More to come, including something completely different. Netflix's stock is anything but Netflix in chill. In fact, experts say it is red hot. Samuel

Burke is with us coming up next.


GORANI: Netflix is on a seemingly unstoppable run. The streaming service is set to announce its first quarter earnings in about 10 minutes. And the

numbers are expected to be huge. Samuel Burke is with us from London with more.

I remember when Netflix, Samuel, was basically one of those DVD mail order companies on the verge of collapse. And now, look at them.

SAMUEL BURKE, CNN BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Those red envelopes. What's amazing here isn't just that the expectations are so

high, Hala, for the numbers coming out in just a few minutes, but actually how much the stock has already gone up. If we just put up a chart here,

you'll see, look at it from January until now. Up about 60 percent. Look at that. January, over there near about $200. Now about $300. Makes you

wish you would have invested around then. Right now, we're expecting sales to go up 40 percent from this time last year. Also, profit to be up 60

percent. The one number that we're going to be watching out for very closely, how many subscribers they've added. We're expecting about 7.5

million. I think what's interesting here, Hala, all the analysts I speak to tell me Netflix cannot be sustained at the price they charge currently.

They're being subsidized really by this high stock evaluation that makes it cheaper for all of us, but they say long-term will have to pay more. I've

been watching Casa De Papel, one from Spain that's been big in Latin America. That's where we've binging on You, Hala?

[15:55:26] GORANI: Wild, Wild Country. Binged on the Bhagwan.

BURKE: Good?

GORANI: Loved it. Blew my mind. Yes, I recommend it.

BURKE: I think Casa De Papel is not going to be the next Orange is the New Black. But if you want to practice your Spanish, it's good. One thing I

don't think we talk enough about are the regional competitors coming up here in the U.K., for instance. You have now a TV, which is a lot of

programs that are original to Sky. And you get that mix of TV shows to keep it fresh. In the United States, you have Hulu which is done

incredibly well, winning awards. They have that mix of original content. Plus TV. The problem with those types streaming packages is they only have

the rights in that region. In the U.K., for now TV. They aren't able to do this global expansion the way Netflix has. And that's really where

they're making so much of their money. A majority of the subscribers now are outside of the United States, in places like the U.K., in France. But

there are these competitors coming out that slowly are making it more difficult for Netflix to just take over a country the way they did when

they first started their expansion.

GORANI: Well, and also now we have few seconds, but it's all about big media, tech companies coming up with original content. That's the


BURKE: And that's what's really on the future for them is going to be difficult. When they go up against Apple, because Apple has this whole

ecosystem. So if you're paying for Apple music, will you stick with a streaming package from Apple? Then can they make it a little bit cheaper?

If you talk about Amazon, rather, Amazon for Amazon prime, you're getting the shipping. You're also getting TV shows, which they're really bulking

up especially here in Europe. And you're getting that streaming music service. So those are the hard parts for Netflix in the future we're not

quite there yet. Apple doesn't have that streaming service just yet.

GORANI: All right. Samuel Burke, thanks very much. I'm Hala Gorani in Paris. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is next.