Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Benjamin Netanyahu's Warning; Myanmar Facing Pressure; Robert Mueller Raised the Possibility of Subpoenaing Donald Trump. Aired 12- 1a ET

Aired May 2, 2018 - 00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[00:00:12] ISHA SESAY, CNN ANCHOR: You're watching CNN Newsroom live from Los Angeles.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN, ANCHOR: Ahead this hour, let the mocking begin. Critics say Benjamin Netanyahu's warning about Iran's nuclear program, it's just stuff which is being known for years.

SESAY: Plus, United Nation's envoy bound (ph) to Bangladesh and Myanmar to see the suffering of the Rohingya people for themselves. But it remains to be seen how close they'll be able to get to the truth.

VAUSE: Later this hour, Mark Zuckerberg done matchmaker, yes that guy. But is anyone ready to trust Facebook with their love life or anything else for that matter?

SESAY: Hello and thank you for joining us. I'm Isha Sesay.

VAUSE: I'm John Vause for this hour of three hours of NEWSROOM LA begins right now.

Israeli Prime Minister is defending his allegations that Iran is lying about a secret nuclear weapons program. Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his case on Monday, weeks before the US must decide if it will remain part of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

SESAY: Many international analysts say there is nothing new about Israel's claim and UN watchdogs says Iran hasn't been working on nuclear weapons since 2009. Mr. Netanyahu insists Tehran has no intention of honoring its commitment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: So if you want peace, the crucial thing is don't let Iran get a clear path to the bomb. That's what that deal does, and I think if you want to assure the peace and security of the Middle East and the world, you can't let that happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SESAY: Well, CNN's Ian Lee is live in Jerusalem for us. So, Ian, world leaders watch, they listen to Mr. Netanyahu's Monday presentation and they are not buying what he's selling. But President Trump is on his side. So does that qualify as a win for the Israeli Prime Minister?

IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Possibly, Isha. You do have Israeli's prime minister taking this information, repackaging it as if it's new. And that according to weapons control experts, and then presenting it to the public.

You know, for Prime Minister Netanyahu, giving President Trump to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, that is going to be a victory for him. You know, this presentation that he gave which had what he said was very damning information and evidence, you know, even though that this all the stuff was well-known by weapons control experts, the IAEA, and other members of the Iran nuclear deal. If it does go that much further, to influence President Trump then yes.

You know, with this, information though, the one thing that, you know, experts are looking at is, if there is anything new in the sense of are there new locations for the IAEA to inspect. So there are -- there is something to this that could be discovered, it just hasn't been discovered yet.

SESAY: But given the strong pushback from leaders and weapons experts, I have to ask, what the fallout is in that is Israel?

LEE: Well, here this presentation, yes, it was given in English but it was given prime time in Israel, when everyone was watching the news. So, you know, this is a prime minister who is also talking to his base, talking to the Israeli people. He has gone after Iran time and time again. He sees Iran as the regional threat, especially with their activities in neighboring Syria.

The United States just said expert or official said that Israel was responsible for some recent strikes inside Syria. But as far as the Iran nuclear deal goes, you know, the internation community says that it is working. You know, you have -- you have Germany, you have the UK, you have France who says that in sense what the prime minister presented actually proved that the Iran nuclear deal was working.

You had the IAEA spokesman Fredrik Dahl say that there was no credible indication of activities in Iran that were relevant to the development of nuclear weapons after 2009. And even the UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said that this is just proof that these inspections are working and that no one trusted Iran. And that's why you need inspectors, and so they say, you know, Iran right now is living up to the deal.

SESAY: All right. Ian Lee went, in all for this for us in Jerusalem, appreciate it. Thank you.

VAUSE: Well. Jessica Levinson is a Professor of Law and Governance at Loyola Law School. We want to kick off with the issue of Iran and the nuclear deal, but also is a lot to get to in US politics story which has broken in the last couple of hours regarding a subpoena and the US president. But, first, after Benjamin Netanyahu presented his case on Monday, the White House put out this statement. These facts are consistent with what the United States has long known. Iran has a robust clandestine nuclear weapons program that has tried and failed to hide from the world and from its own people.

[00:05:14] That came out at 7:30 p.m. Washington time, Monday night. By 9:30 quietly, with no official announcement or official correction statement, that was actually change to read, Iran had a robust clandestine nuclear program.

There is world different between has and had, OK. So the White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, her name was on that statement. She explained how all that happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ZELENY, CNN WHITE HOUSE SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: How does a mistake like this get made? And do you belie the White House has a credibility problem around the world with statements like this? Do you take this seriously?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Absolutely, which why we immediately corrected it. But again, I think the biggest mistake is the fact that the United States ever entered into the Iran deal in the first place. That to me seems to be the biggest mistake in this process, not a simple typo that was immediately corrected and notified individuals as soon we know that it had happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: OK. Two hours immediately corrected, I guess, you know. At least it didn't blame the intern. But that does it say to you about this administration that it makes these kinds of errors and these kind of statements?

JESSICA LEVINSON, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL: As it turns out whether or not you have or had a nuclear weapons program, it's a really big deal. But -- so I guess I would say a couple of things. One, this administration is prone to typos and really obvious glaring typos, and a number of them over basically any type of document that you can possibly think of.

Having said that, we have to look at the time that this came out, what President Netanyahu had just said and that the White House was basically supporting him in a lot of ways. And that the has as opposed to be had would be more supportive of what Israel has just said.

So I think it's interesting though that Sarah Sanders always has the ability to pivot back to, yes, but somebody else did something worse.

VAUSE: Yes. This is the White House that put out a statement on Holocaust Day and didn't mention Jews. It's phenomenal what they do.

LEVINSON: Although they never to their credit said that was a clerical error. They really stuck with that one, yes.

VAUSE: OK. There are more serious issues at this White House than typos. According to The Washington Post, Special Counsel in the Russia investigation Robert Mueller has raised the possibility of issuing a subpoena to compel Donald Trump to testify. Mueller's warning, this is the reporting, the first time he has not had mentioned a possible subpoena to Trump's legal team, spurred a sharp retort from John Dowd then the president's lead lawyer.

"This isn't some game", Dowd said yes according to two people with knowledge of these comments, "You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States." OK. There's a lot to get to this.

So based on the assumption that prosecutors never threaten an action which they cannot take, they cannot follow through on, does that imply to you that Mueller first took this to the Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, and he signed off on this possibility of subpoenaing Donald Trump?

LEVINSON: It does. And I would say there are certainly prosecutors who will take aggressive stances in order to try to get things from witnesses, but if we've seen anything from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it's that he actually is incredibly risk averse and methodical and very strategic. So I think that this idea that he would be threatening a subpoena just as kind tactic to train strong arm the president without knowing that the laws behind him really just creates common sense.

VAUSE: OK. It also seems that the special counsel has not given up on this idea of actually talking to Donald Trump, getting him to, you know, sit down and, you know, talk on the record and answering their questions. I guess, one reason for that could be the issue of obstruction of justice, especially look at this through the lens of the other big story this weekend, on Tuesday, the New York Times reports on those 49 questions which Mueller wants to ask Donald Trump, and most those focus on obstruction of justice.

LEVINSON: Yes. And many of them did, and as he said, I mean so that -- you know, the witch hunt will continue until we actually get President Trump to sit down and answer questions. And I think that if you look at those 48 questions, what's interesting are so many of them go to the issue that's the hardest to proof or obstruction of justice, whether or not there's a corrupt intent.

And so the questions are very open-ended. And I think that's for two reasons. One, it is an unequivocal good to try and get Donald Trump talking and rambling. And I think that is an unequivocal bad for President Trump. And so the other thing is these open-ended questions go often times to what did you know, what did you think, how did you feel about that.

Many of those are different ways of trying to get at the same issue of can you prove corrupt intent under the obstruction of justice statute.

VAUSE: I was looking at those questions and it's what did you know and when did you know it. It's incredible that we just keep coming back to that. With regard to the questions, the President tweeted this on the Tuesday morning. "So disgraceful, but the questions concerning the Russia witch hunt were leaked to the media. No questions on collusion. Oh, I see you have made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed. And an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

[00:10:11] OK. There are 13 questions I think open in public when it comes to collusion. These aren't really questions though. They're topics, which could then result in dozens and dozens and dozens of other questions. And you know it this actually plays out, this is an interview of the President which could last for days.

LEVINSON: That's true. So a couple things you said -- I mean we could unpack this for hours.

VAUSE: Right.

LEVINSON: But this issue of collusion is not a crime. You know that this is a pet peeve of mine. Collision is a crime in the area of antitrust law, but what the questions, about a fourth of the questions get at is was there some -- for lack of a better way of describing it, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

And what we're looking at is whether or not we can find a statutory basis for -- an underlying basis for finding that, yes there was a crime with respect to collision. Now, I think that -- again, if you look at the questions and you look at the potential kind of legal buckets that they would fall within, I am very surprised that I think the people who leaked this were actually from Trump world. And one with --

VAUSE: OK. They didn't do the President any favors it seems.

LEVINSON: No, so one would think that they want people to say look at all these open-ended questions, so many questions, but there is no way that Robert Mueller doesn't already know the answers to those questions. And so I think the initial questions are important, but for sure, Robert Mueller knows the follow up questions because of all the people who he's gone to cooperate with him, Papadopoulos.

VAUSE: There two dozen people from this class who've been interviewed. Very quickly, we're almost out of time, because there is also this question, this legal question about indicting a sitting President. We actually heard from the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on that statements.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROD ROSENSTEIN, US DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. There has been a lot of speculation the media made about this. I just don't have anything to say about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: OK. So he's talking in general terms, but despite what Rosenstein says, you know, this issue has not -- hasn't been fully tested in court about indicting a sitting -- criminal indictment for sitting President.

LEVINSON: That's exactly right. So we have memos from the office of legal counsel. We have Department of Justice memos that say we look at this and we don't think you can do it. What we have, unsurprisingly, is other lawyers who say, you know what, I don't agree with those memos. My guess is that because, again, Robert Mueller is methodical and risk-averse.

And you heard Rod Rosenstein basically say that's what the memos say, that the endgame here isn't to try and test in the Supreme Court, whether or not the President can be indicted. The endgame is a document that is released to the public that puts so much pressure on our legislative branch that they end up having to take action.

VAUSE: OK. And the action would then be impeachment.

LEVINSON: That action would be articles of impeachment, not against Rod Rosenstein ...

(CROSSTALK)

LEVINSON: -- drawing those up against the President.

VAUSE: OK. Jessica, thank you so much. We didn't get to some of the other stuff, but there is also this possibility of Donald Trump taking the fifth which is mind-boggling.

LEVINSON: Well, according to him, only mobsters do that, but...

VAUSE: Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

VAUSE: OK. Thank you, Jess.

SESAY: Well, China is not being left out of the fast moving diplomatic developments on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea's foreign minister has invited his Chinese counterpart to talks Wednesday and Thursday in Pyongyang. Let's get more on all of this.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Isha. This is the second of these kinds of visit, a high-level official traveling from Beijing to Pyongyang in the last couple of months. And certainly, this is an important development, a significant step forward in line with what we have been seeing happening in the last few weeks or months.

Certainly, led, of course, by Kim Jong-un's visit by himself to Beijing, to go see President Xi Jinping there. It has showed improvement in ties here between these two countries that are allies, but their relationship has come under a tremendous strain in the last year to two years as we have seen North Korea provoking tension on the peninsula, with its rapid development of its missile and nuclear program, its frequent testing of those missiles, it's nuclear tests. China, of course, responded by signing to a raft of international sanctions, sweeping sanctions against North Korea, that have really certainly been felt inside North Korea.

But as we've seen these diplomatic development, now coming fast and furious, progress between North Korea and South Korea, plans for North Korea and the US to sit down and meet. We do know that North Korea and China have been actively working to strengthen their ties in advance of a Summit to take place between Kim Jong-un and President Trump, something that could happen in three to four weeks, really as soon as that no date has been set yet, Isha.

[00:15:04] SESAY: Much to fill, I am out. Alexandra Field joining us there from Seoul, always appreciate it.

FIELD: Thank you.

VAUSE: And we'll take a quick break. When we comeback, envoys from the Security Council have now seen first hand the remnants of what the UN calls the ethnic the Rohingya Muslims. Can this high (inaudible) does change anything for this persecuted minority?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Well, Myanmar is facing pressure from the UN Security Council that's allowing investigation into human rights violations of Rohingya Muslims. During envoy, this is the Rakhine State where the Myanmar military has been accused of ethnic cleansing. Nearly 700,000 Rohingya have fled to neighboring Bangladesh, where they will soon face a miserable monsoon season.

VAUSE: UN Diplomats say Myanmar civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi promised an investigation, but activists well they are skeptical. Here is the British Ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN PIERCE, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: Well, I think they everybody has been struck by what we've seen. They've been very moved (Inaudible) bizarre as you know. I think today, everybody has (Inaudible) to them the scale of the challenge because the efforts we have seen from the Burmese have been pretty small scale. You know, getting back 300 refugees today at best when there are a million who need to return home. So it's very clear that everything needs scaling up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SESAY: For more, we're joined by Akshaya Kumar. Akshaya is the Deputy United Nations Director at Human Rights Watch. Akshaya, as always, thank you for being with us.

AKSHAYA KUMAR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH DEPUTY UNITED NATIONS DIRECTOR: Thank you for having me.

SESAY: You believe the UN Security Council envoy is meeting with refugees in Bangladesh and the leaders in Myanmar. You believe this is a significant moment that sends an important signal. Explain what you mean by that.

KUMAR: Well, the truth is that it's been almost nine months since this ethnic cleansing campaign started. And the council has done very little. But by taking this step to go on a four day trip, to go and see the burned villages themselves, to meet with refugees in the camps, and then to go and hold the leader's feet to the fire, in both Burma and Bangladesh. That's a big commitment from them of time.

And it is also an opportunity to reset the council's engagements from a little bit of indifference or inaction paralysis to a moment to really put their backs into trying to make some change.

[00:20:03] SESAY: You know ahead of this trip, my question was you know was this going to be a dog and pony show. I mean we've got the pictures now, the envoy's flying over burned and destroyed villages. I mean was this a highly staged managed affair, which effectively you know confiscated the facts. How do you see it?

KUMAR: Look, it was absolutely stage-managed. I think that they were in a helicopter at some point. They were in very structured government meetings. They met with just five civil society representatives. Then we hear that the Chinese ambassador chose not even show up to meet those civil society representatives in Myanmar itself.

So it was very structured. But there are some things that you can't just whitewash over. For example, they met with the senior general, the head of the army, and he told them that never in the history of the Tatmadaw, in the history of the Myanmar army has there ever been an active sexual violence committed by a soldier.

I mean that's just patently ridiculous. I mean, when you get to that point of stage managing, you actually make yourself look a little foolish.

SESAY: I mean the envoy, as you know, met with the refugees (inaudible) as I said. And it did seems to me though, you know, coming out of that weekend visit that the mission was to put pressure on the government for the safe return of these persecuted people. But I guess my question and the questions others have is should the focus have been on stressing accountability and consequences for what has happened? I wonder what you think.

KUMAR: I think they're both really interconnected. It's hard for me to imagine anyone, especially someone who was driven from their home by a brutal campaign, feeling comfortable going back in an environment where the perpetrators are walking around with immunity, with absolute impunity. And so that accountability that is actually essential, and that's what we keep telling these ambassadors, that you can't just keep hoping that people are going to feel like they can return home safely or voluntarily if they don't get what they themselves are demanding.

And this is the other really important thing. The Rohingya have a voice here, and they make sure to organize and protest, and the one thing that you saw on most of their signs was the clear demand for justice and the clear demand for recognition. They're saying we're not Bengali. We're Rohingya. Recognize us for who we are.

And I think those things need to happen before people are really going to be ready to take the leap, to go back to a place that has become quite hostile to them.

SESAY: The UK ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce was quoted as saying there needs to be an investigation into what is going on in Northern Rakhine State. She added this, which I found interesting. She says it doesn't matter whether it is international or domestic, as long as that investigation is credible. In your view, does it make a difference, an international versus domestic investigation?

KUMAR: Well, at this point, I think we've seen that a domestic investigation just isn't going to be credible. At this point, we need international engagements. Otherwise, you're not going to have any credible justice. You're not going to build the trust with the Rohingya community. And then these ambassadors won't get what they want, which is people feeling safe and like they can go back home.

SESAY: If after all this time, diplomatic, getting that bit wrong if you see what I mean, in the sense that they have heard the statements made by the authorities in Myanmar. They have heard the denials and the exoneration, so they know that they exonerate themselves and don't feel liable for what has happened. If they know that and they're still saying it after all this time, what will change after the UN envoys have made this visit?

KUMAR: It is a good question, and it's one that frustrates us a lot, because I would think that especially after going and seeing it with your own eyes, Karen Pierce herself sort of embraced a Rohingya refugee woman who was telling her account, her truth. If after all that, you cannot sort of recognize the asymmetry of power and the real crying need for justice, then there is a real question to say well, what will be the thing that tipped -- someone over the scale Ambassador Karen Pierce, first female ambassador to sit in that chair for the United Kingdom.

And we have to think about what it means for her to stand up for victims, especially female victims of sexual violence and if she is willing to hand over the baton or accept subpar justice. That's going to be part of her legacy.

SESAY: I think that's actually important point that we need to stress more and more. This will be their legacy when you have 700,000 people fleeing the world watching. Akshaya, it's always good to speak to you. Your insight and perspective is invaluable. Thank you much.

[00:25:06] KUMAR: Thank you for having us.

VAUSE: Well, when we come back the future of the Iran nuclear deal is hanging in the balance. The Israeli prime minister try to finish it up with the scalding PowerPoint presentation. But now, many experts are asking Benjamin Netanyahu, where is the beef?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody, you're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.

SESAY: And I'm Isha Sesay. The headlines this hour, if Donald Trump does and agree to an interview in the Russia investigation, he could face a grand jury subpoena. Sources tell CNN Special Counsel Robert Mueller raised that possibility during a meeting with the president's legal team last month.

VAUSE: Political (inaudible) continues in Armenia parliament failed to give a majority to the only candidate running to replace the prime minister. He has step down last month. Shortly after the vote, protest leader Nikol Pashinyan called on thousands of voters to both roads, railways and airports on wednesday.

SESAY: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is standing by his claim that Iran has been lying about the secret nuclear weapons program. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says the information is not new and the UN watchdog says, there's no evidence of nuclear weapons activity by Iran after 2009.

VAUSE: Dalia Dassa Kaye is Director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy, a Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. We're lucky to have her with us now, great to see you.

So the Israeli Prime Minister on Monday, he did the big presentation on Tuesday, came the push to convince other world leaders the nuclear deal is a bad deal. And the argument here seems to be is the Iranian's just can't be trusted. This is what Mr. Netanyahu said to CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: The whole premise that this deal somehow guarantees a safer, a more modern Iran is wrong. This deal paves Iran's path to a nuclear arsenal. If you got rid of it, the first thing that would happen is you would crash Iran's money machine, in which it is pursuing its dreams of conquest and empire. They're funding it with billions, tens of billions of dollars, their aggression throughout the region and this deal facilitates it.

If you take away the deal, they're going to be in a huge economic problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Dalia, there are a lot there. But let's start off with the European official reaction here. They're saying basically well, you heard the stuff, we knew they had this weapons program, this nuclear weapons program, that's probably one of the deals in the first place.

DALIA DASSA KAYE, RAND CORPORATION, SENIOR POLITICAL SCIENTIST: Yes, absolutely. I think Prime Minister Netanyahu, his argument is not going over well in European capitals, especially following President Macron of France's visit to the United States, where he made a very strong case that this deal is working and that it can be built upon to deal with some of the perceived weaknesses.

But the international community is in agreement that the deal is working and that Iran hasn't violated. And nothing that the Prime Minister of Israel presented yesterday really altered that view.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: And Israel's ambassador to the UN wondered about what is it a public radio in the U.S. on Tuesday and was asked specifically about the evidence presented by the Israeli prime minister. Just listen.

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

STEVE INSKEEP, RADIO HOST: Does any evidence that was uncovered show that Iran is currently pursuing nuclear weapons or currently actively violating the nuclear agreement?

RON DERMER, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO UN: Sure. First, you have the violation in terms of their falsification of their statements to the IAEA.

INSKEEP: Oh, because they lied about the past and what their intentions had been.

DERMER: Well, that was the key stage and actually going to the deal. And was December 2015 where the IAEA had to sign off. And the IAEA whitewashed it. And there's no way they could have done that if this -- if all of these revelations were made in November 2015, we didn't have the information then or else we would have release it had but there's no way --

INSKEEP: But nothing shows that in 2018, they're looking for a weapon, right?

DERMER: No, but now you've seen that they're have been they active program of concealing their nuclear weapons program. Because they put this information in these vaults recently in 2017. They put that information there.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

VAUSE: OK. So the argument here -- OK, so they're not developing weapon now, but they could develop a weapon a little later on and that's a concern.

KAYE: Yes. And that's actually has always been the concern. The National Intelligence estimate in 2007 actually confirmed or stated that Iran had -- had intentions to develop clear nuclear weapons, that the program was believed to have been halted in 2003. So all of this it just reconfirms what was already known which is that, yes, Iran has lied, is likely to lie and that's why there needs to be active international inspections on the ground to prevent Iran from resuming this program.

And that thing, again in that presentation or in the subsequent explanations really suggest that there is evidence. I think we would have seen it yesterday or in the Prime Minister's presentation that today, there is an active violation of the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. So this about half issues. Maybe new evidence will come to light, but, again, to this point there just not seem to be anything that contradicts that.

VAUSE: Before the Iran deal, what was the intelligence assessment on the time frame of Iran's ability to develop some kind of nuclear weapon?

KAYE: Well, that's why the -- Iran nuclear deal was so important, because there were fears that Iran was -- could have been within months of weaponizing its program or within at least a year. So it had an active nuclear energy program, but high levels of enrichment that got dangerous like close to the ability to weaponized too close for neighbors to be comfortable or for the United States and even our allies.

So, I think that's -- that is the main crux of the nuclear deal, with to set that that timeline further forward. So that Iran would be inspected in a way that it would lengthen the time Iran could weaponize the prog -- its program if it chose to do so to at least a year and that you have inspectors there to be able to alert the international committee, that if there were violations and that sanctions could be immediately reimposed and snapped back if there were violations.

VAUSE: OK. And so just to go back to what Benjamin Netanyahu says that, you know, they need the sanctions, because they want to across right (ph) economically so they can develop nuclear weapons. They were developing nuclear weapons with the sanctions in place. So, if Trump actually does go ahead and, you know, reimpose the sanctions on May 12th. Was the assessment on how long before Iran can develop nuclear weapons, because we know that they have a lot of -- you know, materials for nuclear weapon development as part of this agreement. It's always a -- you know, they might not be months, but what are we looking at here?

KAYE: Well, first of all, I think, we should be fair to the Prime Minister's statement which I think was that it went -- that sanctions won't necessarily lead to resumption Iran's nuclear program, but what it could do is maybe curtail some of Iran's regional activities that are non-nuclear. And to be honest that is what the Israelis worry about most. They worry about Iran's activities in the region, especially in Syria. And right now actually it's no coincidence that this announcement took place in the context of escalated Israeli attacks on Iranian assets inside Syria. So there's a real escalation going on the non-nuclear front.

But, unfortunately, the Iranians can meddle in the region without a lot of money. So it's not clear that reposition of sanctions is going to affect that. And the Iranians have other options, they will likely move closer to the Iranians and Chinese if the Iran nuclear agreement falls apart. And what their nuclear intentions will be, I think is uncertain, but it's also quite possible they may not immediately resume nuclear activity. They may try to salvage the deal with the Europeans. So I think a lot of those questions are still to be answered, if this nuclear agreement collapses, but hopefully it won't. [00:35:10] VAUSE: We are out of time. Can we please -- but just -- if they did decide to go down the nuclear road, are they months to use away from a weapon?

KAYE: Well, it would take probably at this point more -- it would take at least a year to get back again. That's the kind of information we wouldn't know at this moment.

VAUSE: OK. Thank you so much --

KAYE: Yes.

VAUSE: -- appreciate your insight.

KAYE: Thank you.

VAUSE: And appreciate your opinions. Great to have you with us.

KAYE: Thank you.

ISHA SESAY, CNN ANCHOR: Very important insight there.

VAUSE: And next, we will talk about, again, with Dalia, she raised the issue of, you know, this ongoing conflict between Israel and Syria and that is inching to moving to al --

SESAY: Moving, yes absolutely.

VAUSE: -- all out confrontation and where that's going in the context of the statement of Israeli Prime Minister.

SESAY: Quick break here. Facebook is ready to play cupid and says it's launching a new dating service for its users. How will it work and when will it take off? Details, next.

VAUSE: I know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUS: Well, for all the desperate and dateless out there, listen now, Facebook wants to help. And why not trust the most intimate desires and passions with Mark Zuckerberg. What could possibly go wrong?

SESAY: The Company is launching a dating (INAUDIBLE) and they said the CEO, among Mark Zuckerberg, says the users will be able to connect with people outside of their friend's list and are ensure security and privacy for seconds.

VAUSE: Heard that before.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FACEBOOK: Yes, this is going to be -- this going to be for building real long-term relationships. All right, not just hookups. It's going to be in the Facebook app, but it's totally optional. It's opt-in. If you want, you can make a dating profile. And I know, a lot of you are going to have questions about this, so I want to be clear that we have designed this with privacy and safety in mind from the beginning.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SESAY: Let's bring Alex Kantrowitz, he is a senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News, and joins us from San Francisco. Good to see you again.

So let me be clear, Facebook which has just been at the center of storm for lying the personal data of millions of people to be harvested is now saying, let me into your most personal space, love and sex, and you can trust this. It feels a little soon to me. What do you think, Alex?

ALEX KANTROWITZ, SENIOR TECHNOLOGY REPORTER, BUZZFEED NEWS: That's the same thing I'm wondering. I'm wondering why now? You know that Facebook has just dealt with the series of crisis, about this handling of people's personal information and whether it can protect its service from foreign manipulation. And I understand that's a big company with over 20,000 people dedicated to many different activities.

But I really wonder, is this something that the company needs to be focusing on this point? Or should it be focusing on the more critical issues at the end?

SESAY: Yes, speaking of critical issues, Zuckerberg, again promising Facebook users that they've learned a lesson from the 2016 election. Listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZUCKERBERG: In 2016, we were slow to identify Russian interference. We expected more traditional cyber-attacks like phishing, and malware, and hacking. And we identified those and notify the right people. But we didn't expect this coordinated information operations, and large networks and fake accounts that we're now aware of.

[00:40:17] So, I sat there on their teams after this and we said, we will never be unprepared for this again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SESAY: All right, but he also says, Alex, as know that it's going to take something like three years to fix Facebook. I mean, that's buying his company a lot of time, isn't it?

KANTROWITZ: He's definitely buying the company time. But he's also talking about a promise that are really difficult to fix. And I don't think that he's actually believes in that it's going to be done in three years either. I think there's a roadmap to fix the problems they know about. In three years, for that's he mention in that clip that you just showed, ahead of the question, there are things that show up that Facebook seriously just doesn't anticipate. So, there's going to be -- and the like your produce as an armories, and I think that's actually the right way to look at it. There's going to be bad actors or they're going to try to manipulate these platforms. And Facebook's response, and then, bad actors try to manipulate it again and Facebook's response. And we're going to be caught up in the cycle forever, not just for three years.

SESAY: The Facebook CEO, as you know as we discuss it, that you know, he got through those two days on Capitol Hill, pretty much unscathed, this are price went up, everybody's happy. Facebook is that feeling a lot of them love stateside but not in the U.K. I want to read this to you. And this is a letter sent by U.K. lawmaker to the head of Policy for Facebook U.K. And says this.

"While Mr. Zuckerberg does not normally come under the jurisdiction of the U.K. parliament, he will do so the next time he enters the country. We hope that he will respond positively to our request, but if not, the committee will resolve to issue a formal summons for him to appear when he is next in the United Kingdom."

And Alex, my question to you is -- I'm talking about a dozen appear to be overly concern with answering U.K. lawmakers questions. Why is that?

KANTROWITZ: Three years ago, every time Zuckerberg, speaks about Facebook, he has of coming off sounding pretty good. And as because I believe that his intentions are true, he is someone that's interested in the best for its users. And so, he should go to the U.K. and speak in front of parliament. And he should spend the next year answering as many of this request as possible because if he is sits behind his Chief Technology Officer, were he sent to U.K parliament as supposed to he himself going in front of them. It's going to look like he has something to hide.

And as we saw in the U.S. Congress, when Zuckerberg showed up, he sat through 10 hours of pretty difficult questioning. He was able to come out looking like a confident leader who has the best interest of the people using his service. And like put it in the U.S., more tap up more him more tap up for the public. He should do in the U.K. as well.

SESAY: Yes, along the specter, you will know Alex, that lawmakers he was facing had no clue in how Facebook works. One would expect -- you know, look, a U.K. lawmaker will be a little bit more savvy, but which we'll see. Alex Kantrowitz, joining us there from San Francisco. Thank you.

KANTROWITZ: Thank you.

SESAY: And thank you is going around. Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles, I am Isha Sesay.

VAUSE: And thank you Facebook. I'm John Vause. "WORLD SPORTS" after the break.

SESAY: You don't even have Facebook. VAUSE: Not anymore now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:45:07] KATE RILEY, CNN ANCHOR: And I welcome all to "World Sports", I'm Kate Riley at CNN Center. Anyone place to start the show of course down with the first semifinal of the Champions League. The second leg between Real Madrid and Bayern Munich was played out earlier and going to this match, where the home side and current holders held a 2-1 lead off the first leg. Well here are the scenes that greeted the Real players weekend, really see what it would mean if the fans got that third Champions League for a straight year and confidence sort of have been in the long-time high pre-matches Madrid have one won their last six matches against this Bundesliga Club.

Now, also in fine voice, the Bayern fans also making an effort to wave of red could be seen in the Sasha (ph), Spanish capital before came up around 4,000 tickets for a way supporters was sold to the Bernabeu, lovely south there.

Well, Bayern with the coming special in the night, or to having so away, goes against them. The German chance, really had a great start going ahead first time to get so at hitch (ph) just three minutes, perhaps they -- has so what progress they needed putting goal the next one, the league will be cut short, Karim Benzema would level things up for 11 minutes. There's decisive moment came in the second -- there's the second half is terrible back pass and Bayern slowly to glitch and Benzema was in for a second. Bayern would be rocks, they didn't give up though.

James Rodriguez playing on back against his former team no less. No celebration there, and Madrid hung on to clinch it. Yet another trip for them for the Champions League final.

We have confirmation then of the results over the two semi-final legs, two all on the night and 4-3 on aggregate, and there it is, Real Madrid have reached their 16th European cup Champions League final more than any other side.

Now though attention turns to Wednesday night's match where as Roma hosting Liverpool and ahead of the match, the traveling faithful from Merseyside have been urge to, "respect the rules of Rome". Police in the Italian capital want supporters of the EPL Club to avoid certain areas to avoid any potential risk of violence. Last week we did see ugly scenes around the ant field which left one man in a critical condition. Well as for the match itself, the Liverpool boss fail his side on whether of this run.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JURGEN KLOPP, LIVERPOOL MANAGER: We're almost more ready than Barcelona. Barcelona thought probably, you have to ask them, that it's decided us, everybody is talk -- that saying us -- telling us that quite difficult and it's possible. Nobody told Barcelona it's possible to beat you 3-0 or 4-0 or whatever. Nobody told them, so -- because nobody could imagine that it can happen, but it happened. So if -- if a warning was needed, I didn't need the warning, but if the warning was needed, and there's a warning. That's how it is.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RILEY: You will remember, of course, Roma love inflicting the shock and defeat at the quarterfinal stage, they did a goal speed (INAUDIBLE) planning to advance from semis up to overturning a heavy loss from the first leg and get this. They haven't conceded a single goal in the five home Champions League games this season so the inspiration is certainly there.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

EUSEBIO DI FRANCESCO, ROMA COACH (through translation): We will play a match, a champions league semifinal. A state for the Italians and English in front of 70,000 people. And you expect the team just to yield? No. You must expect a fighting team, because I want a team that's on the field can get everything that it has. Then the game can end 4-1, 3-1 either way, or no I do not care. Because I want to see is the enthusiasm and desire to go beyond the limits which is what we must do tomorrow.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RILEY: (INAUDIBLE), we'll have to figure out a way to slow down Mo Salah, he scored twice and set up two more in the first leg seriously, it really has been a breakout season for this Liverpool star, they see it here has been named as the football writers player of the year as well this week. It's another award to the whole host of gongs he's received this campaign which include the players' player of the year, the African player of the year.

He's also been the Premier League's player of the month three times and also the Champions League players of the week, four times, no less. So if you love Mo Salah, you're going to love CNN this week. We have loads of content coming up for you, starting with our online piece, you can read all about how Salah has transcended in this Premier League to walk among the Egyptian gods. You can find that online at cnn.com/sport.

Coming up here on WORLD SPORTS, I'm going to introduce to you to a really inspirational boxer name. She's been knocking down barriers her whole life and this weekend, she'll represent of biggest ever achievement.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:52:32] RILEY: It's going to be a historical weekend of boxing for the first time, the American broadcaster HBO will televise a woman's fight live in the ring, two fighters of considerable pedigree. Cecilia Braekhus is the undefeated and undisputed welterweight champion, she's taking on the former middle weight world champion, Kelly Reese. She's actually drop down and wait for the fight in Los Angeles. Cecilia' story is absolutely fascinating, she was born Colombia, and then grew up in an orphanage until she was adopted at the age of two and then moved to Norway.

CNN's Don Riddell caught up with her earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT HOST: How important -- how significant is it that this fight is going to be shown live on HBO for the first time as opposed to taped and replayed later?

CECILIA BRAEKHUS, BOXER: It's really a big deal, and I'm trying not to let that get to me, but, still, of course, you know, you are representing a of lot here. It means a lot. I know there's a lot of feelings, emotions. I know a lot of female fighters for this, it will be emotional for a lot of people, and it will be a big celebration. And of course, I want to crown it all with a huge win. Hopefully a knockout.

RIDDELL: And it just so happens to be occurring in 2018, where I feel like there is just so much other societal change and women really are making great strives this year, in so many different ways. I mean, do you see these things as perhaps all being connected somehow?

BRAEKHUS: I do, I do. This is not only a boxing match. This is so much more. My biggest wish is for this to -- when people see despite, it's first -- first of all it is to just say and think that, you know, I'm getting a little bit emotional, and when I'm seating, talking t you actually, because I am just -- I'm hoping and I'm wishing so much that we will see lot of more female fighter in the future on HBO. So this is really a big deal.

RIDDELL: That I think brings us neatly to how you got started in this game, because of course it unusual for women to box or certainly used to be when you started. And, of course, you were nowhere at that time. But it wasn't even allowed. It was main game (ph). So, how on earth did you find boxing? How did you get started?

[00:54:57] BRAEKHUS: Oh, well I actually started with kick boxing when I was 13 years old. And my parents, they didn't want me to do this, so I had to sneak out for about a year to go to do my training. And when they caught me, I -- I kind of already had decided to this is what I wanted to do. And then I went over to go amateur boxing and professional boxing.

And -- and, you know, I wasn't allowed to box in my home country. And that was something I wanted to change. So, we -- we actually changed the law. We got rid of the ban, and I fought in Norway for the first time in 31 years.

RIDDELL: Hey, your record is pretty impressive, 32-0. You've never lost a boxing fight. Does it get easier, or does it get harder?

BRAEKHUS: Oh harder. Much harder. You know, climbing to the top that's the easiest part. The hardest part is staying at the top. And oh I just feel all the hungry girls, you know, they are hungry. They're coming up, they're training, then they're watching me and then -- they want to take that oh, they want all the bells, they want all the glory. And I just hang in there.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RILEY: Yes, what a great story. Well, Cecilia will defend her undisputed welterweight crown on Gennady Golovkin under card from StubHub Center in California. And Don also spoke with Triple G and he absolutely lit up when Don mentioned Cecilia's name.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GENNADY GOLOVKIN, PROFESSIONAL BOXER: She is champ. She is champ. She is great, you know. She -- you know. Seriously I don't like woman boxing, but she's good. She's like a extra girl, you know, like I maybe sometimes like huge. She like (INAUDIBLE). She is huge. Right now I'm very happy right now she's my under card. We're going together to the show, to boxing event. This is amazing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RILEY: All right. That is it from us. Thanks so much for watching. Stay with CNN. The news is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.