Return to Transcripts main page


Political Civility In The Trump Era; Trump Lashes Out As White House Calls For Civil Behavior; Trump Blasts Harley-Davidson Over Planned Move; Trump Tariffs Are Giving U.S. Leverage In Negotiations; Spain "Stolen Babies" Trial; Prince William Lays Wreath At Holocaust Memorial; Uber Wins Right To Keep Operating In London; Argentina Survive Scare, Advance To Knock Out. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired June 26, 2018 - 15:00   ET




HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from CNN London, I'm Hala Gorani.

Tonight, a big victory for President Trump. His travel ban will stay in place after a Supreme Court ruling. The president is happy about that.

But he's not so happy with Harley-Davidson. He says the motorcycle company is waving the white flag by moving some production overseas.

It's a World Cup showdown that could see Leonel Messi saying goodbye to the tournament. It's happening now. We will be live in Moscow with all the


Let us start with the Supreme Court ruling. Donald Trump calls it, quote, "a tremendous victory for the American people and the Constitution."

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his controversial travel ban, the third incarnation of it, by the narrowest of margins giving Mr. Trump broad

powers to act in the name of national security.

Lower courts had blocked earlier versions of his travel ban. This revised version targets five Muslim majority countries as well as North Korea and

Venezuela. It was a 5-4 decision. The court ruled the ban does not constitute discrimination on religious grounds. Mr. Trump says the ruling

will help keep America safe.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure. At a minimum we

have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. We know who is coming in. We know where they're from. We just have to know who is

coming here.

The ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the Democrats politicians are wrong and they turned out to be very wrong. What we're

looking for as Republicans, I can tell you, is strong borders, no crime.


GORANI: All right. Strong borders, no crime. It's the same type of rhetoric we have heard from the president about immigrants and migrants

coming from Latin America. This time, applied to Muslim majority countries, even though, of course, there's a very, very long vetting

process, especially when it comes to people from the Middle East who come to the United States claiming asylum.

During the campaign though, Mr. Trump didn't try to hide the fact that he wanted to ban all Muslims from the United States. Not just from those

countries. All Muslims. In fact, that line was a huge crowd pleaser at his allies. Remember this?


PRESIDENT TRUMP: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's

representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.


GORANI: All Muslims. Well, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled that Mr. Trump's inflammatory campaign remarks do not take away from

his presidential authority to issue a travel ban calling it a neutral proclamation. That reasoning triggered a fiery dissent from the four

remaining justices. We'll get to that in a moment.

Let's bring in CNN's Sarah Westwood live at the White House. We are also joined by our Supreme Court reporter, Ariane De Vogue. Ariane, I want to

start with you. So, for opponents of the ban, is it over? Is this it?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: This is it. This was sweet vindication for President Trump. Remember that this ban was struck down so

many times, various versions in the lower courts. This time, it's really vindication for him. It's a 5-4 ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority. He said that the ban is squarely within the scope of the president's power. Not only did he say

this president, he said any president. I think he was sending a strong signal there.

GORANI: Right. Sarah, he said it. This is a huge victory for the president. This is -- it's an election year. His base is going to love

this. It makes him look like a winner in this particular case with regard to this travel ban.

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN REPORTER: That's right. President Trump has already circled back and sort of taunted some critics saying the ruling highlighted

what he described at the hysterical coverage of the travel ban in its earliest iterations.

[15:05:10] We should not that the version the Supreme Court ruled on this week actually was the third version of the travel ban. It had been watered

down quite a bit. President Trump at one point complained about the fact that the Justice Department was choosing to defend the third draft of the

travel ban and not the initial, the most hardline one that drew a lot of consternation around the country.

But President Trump clearly feeling vindicated by this decision. It was one of the first major cases that tested whether he had used his

presidential power within the scope of the law. President Trump can expect that we are going to hear more about this travel ban ruling as he continues

to get out and campaign for Republicans around the country.

GORANI: And Ariane, this is the dissenting opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion, taking the rare step of reading it aloud in

court to stress her opposition. Sotomayor says today's ruling fails to safeguard the fundamental principal of religious neutrality.

She writes, "It leaves undisturbed policy first advertised openly and unequivocally and a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States

because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national security concerns." Obviously, it is a conservative majority court now, though.

DE VOGUE: Well, that's right. It was 5-4. This I one of the most divisive opinions we have seen so far this term. She was writing for

herself and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She repeated the lines that challengers have said all along.

They said, it's illegal. It's unconstitutional. You should look at the tweets, what the president said during the campaign. John Roberts said,

look, we are talking -- we are looking at what is in front of us.

We're talking about the executive and not this president. He said that he didn't have to read -- he didn't are have to look at those tweets. He said

he had to look at what was in front of him which he called neutral in terms of religion.

But there's one another thing that she said, our Constitution demands, and our country deserves a judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to

account. At the end she said, with profound regret I dissent.

And justices, they usually say at the end I respectfully dissent. She didn't. She left that out. This is a fiery dissent. It's the four

justices on this court who were put there by Democratic presidents. It just goes to show how important the courts are, and the judges are. Donald

Trump of all people, he knows that.

GORANI: Ariane De Vogue and Sarah Westwood, thanks to both of you.

Let's get more now on the significance of this travel ban ruling. I'm joined by CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan. So, for people watching all over

the world, Paul, is the Supreme Court basically now saying that the president unilaterally, without the approval or input of Congress, can ban

people from entire parts of the world with the stroke of a pen?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No. The Supreme Court is not saying that at all. Quite to the contrary. I think what the Supreme Court said is the

president has the authority -- the institutional authority as president to protect America's borders and to promulgate reasonable regulations to make

sure that dangerous people are not let into the country.

If there were a law that said no Muslims can come into the United States, the president could shout that from the mountaintop it would not be upheld

by the court.

GORANI: But where is the proof the people he is banning from entering the United States are dangerous? No citizens from those countries committed

terrorist attacks in the U.S. I'm wondering what the reasoning is that they would say that the president has the authority to protect America by

closing the borders of the country to people deemed a threat, in this case, how are they deemed a threat?

CALLAN: I think what you are talking about is the words probably that was used in the first travel ban. You have to remember, a lot of people who

now are angry with this court ruling, I think including Judge Sotomayor who wrote that very angry dissent are really talking about travel ban number


This travel ban has been rewritten twice by teams of lawyers to make sure that it fits the Constitution. It specifies detailed analysis as to how

people should be examined by U.S. border officials to see if they are a threat.

It does not ban Muslims in general. As a matter of fact, it's far more specific and guards due process in a greater way than bans that were issued

in the past by Reagan and by President Carter and by other U.S. presidents.

It's really -- there's an anger at President Trump that has made people, I think -- some people at least angry at the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the

court recognized that America's borders have to be protected.

GORANI: I think the anger doesn't come because people don't accept the boarders have to be protected.

[15:10:08] I think the anger comes from the knowledge that the people who are being hyper-vetted and some in some cases banned and turned around

don't come from parts of the world that constitute a bigger part to America.

That this is -- based on the things he said today when he says I must keep America safe and not allow dangerous people from coming in, paraphrasing.

That's where the anger comes from and the frustration. It's not necessarily a logical list of countries.

CALLAN: Well, I think it is a logical list of countries. I also think if you read Judge Roberts' opinion, you will see that he outlines the base

factors that are analyzed with respect to the individuals coming from those countries.

The rationale was not that they are Muslim but that their infrastructure, because of a breakdown in society, was not there to vet these people before

they present themselves to the border. In other countries, there are vetting procedures in place.

Also, Venezuela and North Korea are part of this. They don't have majority Muslim populations. All in all, the court said, listen, the president has

the right to regulate for safety purposes who comes into the United States. This particular version of the travel ban passes constitutional muster

regardless of what Mr. Trump says.

GORANI: Right. I mean, I know what you are saying about countries where there's a breakdown of institutions and war zones where you can't

necessarily properly vet people because at the point of origin there was no vetting.

Although there has never been precedent for citizens of those countries committing terrorism in the United States. Whereas other countries not on

the list have had some of their citizens commit acts of terrorism and they're not on the list. There's that that some people are finding not

necessarily logical.

CALLAN: Those countries you are talking about were originally put on a list prepared by President Obama who was not customarily referred to as

being a racist or anti-Muslim. That's where that list started, with the Obama administration.

GORANI: I'm not -- that's the case.

CALLAN: So, I think it's unfair to say that it's a reflection of Trump's anti-Muslim philosophy. I think it was -- at least during the Obama

administration, there was a good faith basis in trying to figure out where the greatest possibility of future threats would come from. That was the

basis of it.

GORANI: What kind of precedent does this set then? This isn't just for this president. Right? This must set a precedent for future presidents

and whatever they decide to do through executive order.

CALLAN: Well, I don't think it changes American law very much. You have to remember that under the U.S. Constitution, the president is delegated

the authority to negotiate foreign relations and to determine how we protect American borders.

That essentially has been a presidential prerogative. One of the reasons for it is that it's very difficult for Congress -- if you have a threat

from a certain country, you can't have Congress sit down and pass a law.

They would be debating it for three weeks. By the time they had a law, the threat would be in the United States. You needed a chief executive who

could act quickly. That's why the constitution was written the way it was.

Of course, the constitution also requires due process and you can't discriminate on the basis of religion. The court has tried to balance

those. When they looked at this final version of the travel ban, not the first one and not the rantings of President Trump during his campaign.

They said, you know, when you look at the actual wording of this statute, this executive order, it passes constitutional muster. It's not


GORANI: All right. We have -- as you said yourself -- an angry opinion there written by Sonia Sotomayor. Thank you, Paul Callan. Appreciate it.

We're seeing some protests in the U.S. over this travel ban ruling. How will the rest of the world view it? CNN's Ben Wedeman is following

international reaction to the story from Beirut. I take it there's late. There's no reaction yet. One can guess just based on the announcement of

the third version of the travel ban a few months ago what people think about it and the president.

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Actually, I was in Turkey and then in Iraq in January 2017 when the first travel ban came out.

There was widespread anger and resentment over that particular travel ban, particularly in Iraq, a country that has been fighting with the U.S.

against ISIS for years.

Now a year and a half later, really, things have changed. People have in many instances come to the conclusion that the United States is not a

friendly country when it comes to Muslim travelers.

[15:15:09] whether they are tourists, businessmen or people who would like to immigrate there. They simply realize it's not a friendly country

anymore. Last week, we were in a Syrian refugee camp here in northeastern Lebanon.

Speaking to people, they were talking about they would like to go to France, they would like to go to Germany, Sudan, Sweden, Turkey. Nobody

mentioned the United States because it's always been a very difficult country to travel to and the impression among many is that it is a country

where a significant percentage of the population is hostile to those of the Muslim faith -- Hala.

GORANI: I wonder how that's going to affect kind of the migration routes and where Middle Easterners end up going. It used to be Canada and the

United States were the primo destination. Now that seems out for so many of them.

WEDEMAN: Certainly, Canada is still an attractive destination if you are fleeing war and chaos in countries like Syria. But the United States -- it

was never an easy country to go to. Talk to anybody who has gone through the process of applying for an immigration visa to the United States.

It is a long and expensive process which a tiny percentage of people actually get through. So, they go, and they look at other opportunities.

We have gotten some reaction around the region to this latest Supreme Court decision.

I was in contact with an official in Damascus who gave the verbal equivalent of a shrug of the shoulder when he heard it, understanding, of

course, that Syria is definitely not going to be getting off any travel ban list any time soon.

We're also, for instance, in touch with people in Yemen. One Yemeni who had studied in the U.S., he said I believed the U.S. was the land of

opportunity, the land of the free. Now I think it's become the land of Americans only -- Hala.

GORANI: Ben Wedeman, thanks very much. Live in Beirut.

While President Trump is trying to keep some people out of the U.S., here is who he says should stay, the motorcycle maker, Harley-Davidson. Today

the president warned the company against making good on its plan to move some production overseas to avoid tariffs. He said it would be the

beginning of the end for the iconic American firm. Listen.


PRESIDENT TRUMP: Harley-Davidson is using that as an excuse. I don't like that. I have been very good to Harley-Davidson. They used it as an

excuse. I think the people that ride Harleys are not happy with Harley- Davidson. I wouldn't be either.


GORANI: Those tariffs would come from Europe. Europe would be imposing tariffs on Harley-Davidson because it would want to strike back at tariffs

imposed by the United States.

If this is just the beginning as Trump wages his trade wars, I want to bring in CNN senior economics analyst, Stephen Moore, with the Heritage

Foundation and used to be an adviser for President Trump. Is this turning into a giant and some would say unnecessary trade war here?

STEPHEN MOORE, CNN SENIOR ECONOMICS ANALYST: Well, good question. I was never much in favor of the steel tariffs. That's what's brought about this

retaliation from Europe. One of the problems with the steel tariffs is that every worker we have in the United States that works building steel,

we get 50 workers like the Harley-Davidson workers who use steel.

So, this never made a lot of sense to me as a job protection policy. I happen to think that this is a very strange and unwise decision by Harley-

Davidson. I used to go to the Trump rallies all the time when I worked with Donald Trump on the campaign.

When you would go to these giant rallies, it wouldn't be uncommon for 200 or 300 Harley-Davidsons would be at the side of the rallies. My point is

the kind of people in the United States who buy Harley-Davidsons, this is a generalization, but it's generally true, are people who supported Donald


GORANI: Harley-Davidson isn't doing this to hurt Donald Trump supporters. They're doing this because they're saying that the cost of each bike would

be $2,000 higher.

MOORE: But my point is, for every new customer they might be able to get in Europe, they risk losing their customer base in the UNITED States

because these Trump voters who are going to say, I'm not buying Harley- Davidson if they're moving their factories overseas. I believe this policy -- I'm going to make this prediction. I think they will reverse this

policy. I think they're making a big mistake doing this.

[15:20:11] Now maybe I'm wrong about that. It's a big, big PR disaster. By the way, their stock fell dramatically when they made this announcement.

Investors don't like it very much. Your larger point is a fair one.

Will this kind of retaliation by Europe lead to more of these situations where American companies actually leave the United States rather than come

back to the United States? By the way, that would be the opposite of what Donald Trump would like to see.

GORANI: I'm just unclear about what choice American companies, that Europe says they will slap very high tariffs on, what choice they have if they

want to continue to sell -- is it a question of either I take some economic pain on this end, so I don't offend this other customer base? Why is the

president putting American companies in this position?

MOORE: The question is, are American companies -- is the United States going to surrender to tariff blackmail by these other nations.

GORANI: What's the tariff blackmail? I'm unclear. What's the tariff blackmail by Europe?

MOORE: These tariffs -- yes.

GORANI: But they're retaliation for what Donald Trump announced against European steel and potentially cars.

MOORE: No, this is -- I know. But this is a really important point that nobody is reporting. Europeans have much higher tariffs than we do

already. All we're trying to do is level the playing field. We're trying to say, if you are going to impose high tariffs on our products -- what

Donald Trump want is reciprocity. It's ridiculous for Trump to say we are going to match your tariffs and these countries like Germany will say, we

will impose higher tariffs on you.

GORANI: You are saying that Europe has higher tariffs than the U.S., but across the board, the tariff percentage, across the board, not industry per

industry, is pretty similar in the U.S. and Europe.

MOORE: No, no, no, they're not. Don't forget, Europe has value added taxes, which are 10 percent to 15 to 20 percent, which are basically, you

know, tariffs on American products that go into those countries so --

GORANI: The U.S. can't tell European countries what tax they should apply on goods.

MOORE: That's right. We cannot tell them what to --

GORANI: I mean, they have their own government and their own policies.

MOORE: They do. Any country can put whatever tariffs they want on. They can't complain that America is putting a tariff on now.

GORANI: Yes, but you are talking about vat here which is different.

MOORE: It's a legal tariff. When American product goes over to Germany or France or Spain or Italy, the first thing that happens --

GORANI: The vat is across the board to all products. It's not like we are applying vat to an American car, but not to a German car.

MOORE: No. If a product is sent from the United States over into a country like Germany, the first thing that happens when it hits that border

is it -- they slap it with a vat tax. We don't do that to products brought in -- we don't have a value added tax in the United States.

That's an unfair situation for American companies. Maybe it means we have to have a value added tax ourselves. The point is that -- by the way, the

tariffs are substantially higher in Europe.

There's a new study that has European tariffs about twice as high as ours. We're just -- Trump wants reciprocity. He wants all the countries to

reduce tariffs, not to raise them.

GORANI: OK. So, we will have you on again about this.

MOORE: It's a good discussion. It's a discussion.

GORANI: We need to have the discussion.

MOORE: I will send you the data and show you --

GORANI: I will send you the data I have. Stephen Moore, we will talk again soon. Thank you very much.

Still to come tonight, a horrendous case that shined a light on some of the world's darkest practices. Stay tuned with us. We have a new update from


Breaking news on the fate of a young woman, Noura, and CNN's reporting had something to do with a big decision today. We will bring you that next.



GORANI: To Sudan where in the face of horror itself, one face is being seen as a symbol of defiance against forced marriage and rape. It's that

of Noura Hussein. You remember this one photo we have of her. A teenager who killed her husband after he raped her as members of his family held her


Imagine the horror. A court, though, has now spared Noura's life. She was sentenced to death. She does still face time in prison.

Nima Elbagir who's done a lot of reporting on Noura is here in the studio. So, first of all, she was sentenced to death. That was reduced.

NIMA ELBAGIR, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That was commuted. They are now sentencing her to five years in prison based off a charge of

manslaughter. They are asking her to pay compensation, the blood money, of $18,000 to her rapist's family.

GORANI: They don't have that money.

ELBAGIR: They don't have the money. They don't have the money. The hope is someone will step many. The concern for me is that while this is a huge

win, we can't take that away, but it doesn't change anything. What the government has done is specifically commute this one girl's sentence. As

we saw, this is an issue -- something like 37 percent of marriages in Sudan are child marriages. This doesn't change anything for them.

GORANI: And this had something to do -- I mean, obviously, you have done a lot of reporting. CNN was the first to report on Noura, Noura's case.

Authorities are acknowledging -- there's an acknowledgement it's the pressure and international attention that had something to do with this.

ELBAGIR: Yes, yes, quite candidly, they acknowledged they had been forced to make a difficult decision based on our pressure and by other media. It

doesn't require them to step down sufficiently and change the fact that Sudan has the lowest legal age of consent in Africa. It's 10 years of age

to get married in Sudan. It's legal from (inaudible).

GORANI: All right. Hopefully, you will be able to speak to Noura and get access to her, so we can hear directly from her. Nima Elbagir, thanks very

much for the reporting that had some impact there in Sudan.

U.S. officials are blocking news cameras from filming inside detention centers where migrant children separated from their parents are being held.

Tonight, we're getting our first look at non-government footage from one of the facilities.

A woman who worked at a center in New York recorded these pictures last week and smuggled them out. She has since resigned, and she provided the

video to MSNBC through her attorney. You can take a look there.

The former employee says many children there cry for their parents and have no idea where they are. She captured a worker giving this warning to



GORANI: CNN has reached out to the facility for a response. We have not received one.

Meanwhile, we are just getting breaking news, 17 states and Washington, D.C. have filed a joint lawsuit in U.S. federal court challenging the

family separation policy. The suit argues that the White House has violated due process rights of parents and children. It calls the policy,

quote, irrationally discriminatory. Mr. Trump issued an executive order last week that was supposed to end family separations. But the lawsuit

calls that it was horrid. We're going to stay on top of this and we'll bring you more details as we get them.

Still to come tonight, insults, harassment and general nastiness. Politics was never for the faint of heart, but it's becoming even less civil in the

Trump era. Ahead, we ask, is it too late to be nice?


GORANI: So imagine this. You're out having dinner with your family, unwinding on a Friday night, when you're asked to leave the restaurant.

The reason, the owner doesn't like your politics, doesn't like your boss. That happened to the White House press secretary during the weekend. The

incident once again put civility and politics or the lack of it in the spotlight. As we hear from Abby Phillip.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the party of Maxine Waters. Do you believe her?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN CORRESPONDENT: President Trump ramping up his feud with veteran democratic congresswoman, Maxine Waters. Just hours after press

secretary, Sarah Sanders called for civility after being ousted from a Virginia restaurant.

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I was asked to leave because I work for President Trump. Healthy debate on ideas and political philosophy

is important. But the calls for harassment and push for any Trump supporter to avoid the public is unacceptable.

PHILLIP: Sanders is the latest in a string of Trump backers who have been publically rebuked for their support of the administration.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Shame on you. Shame on you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shame, shame, shame, shame.

PHILLIP: The confrontations dividing democrats who have struggled over how aggressively to challenge the administration, particularly in light of the

president's own history of inflammatory remarks.

TRUMP: Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd. He's a sleeping son of a bitch.

They call her Pocahontas.

You see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them.

I don't know about if I would have done well, but I would have been boom, boom, boom. I'll beat that --

PHILLIP: Congressman Waters encouraging her supporters to protest over the weekend.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: If you see anybody from that cabinet, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them.

PHILLIP: President Trump responding by insulting Waters' I.Q. and falsely accusing her of calling for harm to his supporters before seemingly issuing

a threat of his own, tweeting, "Be careful what you wish for, Max." Waters denying she encouraged violence.

[15:65:14] WATERS: I believe in peaceful, very peaceful protests. I have not called for the harm of anybody. This president has lied again.

PHILLIP: But Democratic Party leadership also denouncing her behavior.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: No one should call for the harassment of political opponents. That's not right, that's not American.

PHILLIP: Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi tweeting a rare rebuke, "Trump's daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but

unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieve unity."


GORANI: That was Abby Phillip reporting. So, can we ever go back to just talking nicely with each other? Has that train left the station? Let's

ask that question to David Rothkopf, a visiting professor at Columbia University in New York.

So, David, what did you make when you heard about Red Hen, that restaurant in Virginia basically asking Sarah Sanders to leave? What did you make of


DAVID ROTHKOPF, VISITING PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, it's consistent with a growing trend in American politics. The owner of the

restaurant wrote up an article kind of explaining why they did it. It was fairly rational. He don't think they did anything terribly rude. I find

it a little bit off putting that the Trump administration, which has publically attacked people for their race, for their gender, used

derogatory language, promoted Nazism is all of a sudden a little offended when they get pushback from the public. I think the key is --

GORANI: I was going to say, is it a slippery slope though? I guess if Democrats -- if a Democrat or someone who is a Trump opponent had been

thrown out of a Trump supporting establishment, would there not be an uproar?

ROTHKOPF: I think there would be. And ideally, we wouldn't be in this situation, but I have to say if you're in a situation where babies are

being put into cages and Nazis are being embraced and the press is being called the enemy of the public and you're sort of drifting towards

authoritarianism, it's not business as usual. It's not the situation we've been in in the past. And I would expect --

GORANI: So you're saying these are exceptional times.

ROTHKOPF: Yes, I think they're exceptional times.

GORANI: And this is what? Civil disobedience?

ROTHKOPF: Yes. I think they're exceptional times. They call for exceptional measures. Personally, I think they should be legal and I think

they should be peaceful. And I think they should be wherever possible respectful. But I think challenging these people wherever they go in a

legal and peaceful manner is the responsibility of citizens. It's not an aberration. That's how democracy works. I think we need to be cognizant

of that. And I also think that if you reach a point of criticality in a democracy where it could go off the cliff because of authoritarian

tendencies at the top, then you need to take stronger measures than you might in another otherwise more civil situation.

GORANI: Isn't that -- I mean, I wonder if that's making the divide even more difficult to -- that this basically, this war between two factions in

the United States is becoming -- both sides are becoming so entrenched. Was there hope for the country to unify any time soon again?

ROTHKOPF: Sure. I think that the next leader that the United States has, has an opportunity to say, look, I'm a uniter. We should get back to doing

business the way we did. We should have respect and compassion and tolerance as foundations of democratic interaction. But that's not what

Donald Trump is doing. That's not what the Trump administration is doing. They are not practicing politics as usual. And yet, they are crying out

loud that politics ought to be practiced with them with kid gloves while they take off the kid gloves and they use these rough tactics themselves.

I don't think that's sustainable. Frankly, I don't think it's what we're going to see for the next couple of years.

GORANI: You know, what's interesting -- and I found very interesting, there was an interview with a member of bikers for Trump on CNN USA last

hour. After Harley-Davidson announced that it would move some production overseas to avoid the higher European tariffs on its motorcycles. I

thought, OK, well maybe Harley-Davidson fans will think Donald Trump started this trade war and now it's going to make our motorcycles more

expensive. Instead, this is what Harley-Davidson aficionado had to say. Listen.


[15:40:07] CHRIS COX, BIKERS FOR TRUMP: I myself ride a Harley-Davidson, but I'm certainly not married to my Harley-Davidson. Again, we served

Harley well to realize that the biker community, the veterans and the blue collar, that they are one of the most patriotic group of people in the

world. And that they're going to stick by our president. We know he's doing what's best. He's going to shake things up before he can make things

-- give us an even playing field. We couldn't be more proud of him.


GORANI: So, David, I thought this was fascinating, because it illustrates that even though some of the policies of the president will hurt people

directly, they will still not blame him. They will blame who he tells them to blame.

ROTHKOPF: Well, look, I think a lot of this discussion is not rational. We want it to be. We want to say -- well, look, he launched the trade war

and he's going to be the one who costs you the job or makes the Harley cost more. But that's not what this is about. This is about economic anxiety.

It's about white grievances with the world that they perceive has been unfair to them, albeit erroneously. It's about class distinctions and red

states versus blue states. Trump is about dividing the people. That's what he does. Today's decision of the Supreme Court takes us back to the

very first days of the administration when he was scapegoating Muslims and he was scapegoating Mexicans then and he's been doing this throughout his

tenure. And I think the interesting thing is that the people who have embraced that are hypersensitive to people coming back at them with even

milder reproaches for the policies and things that they have been doing that have been destructive.

GORANI: I want to ask you just one last -- because when you talk about economic anxiety, the numbers in the United States are incredibly good.

Unemployment is low. It's actually going down for African-Americans and Hispanics in the United States. The U.S. is by far and away the most

powerful country. It will be for historically going forward in our lifetimes and beyond. Why are people -- why is there anxiety in America?

ROTHKOPF: Well, because most of the benefits of the growth of the post- recovery period have gone to the top 10 percent. The vast majority have gone to the top one percent, 90 percent of the benefits have gone to the

top 10 percent of the people. The bottom 90 percent of the people are not taking advantage of the growth in this economy. And while there is --

there has been a long-term trend in terms of employment, you have to remember that we also rejiggered all those employment numbers a few years

back during the Obama administration. And the number of people who were out of the workforce is larger than it has historically been. And so if

you're down in the bottom 50 percent, you don't have the same mobility you did, inequality has been growing for 40 years, wages have not been growing

and the rich have been getting richer and you're angry. That guy was angry. He was speaking out of anger, not out of sense of economics.

GORANI: And he believes Donald Trump will solve those problems for him. Thanks very much, David Rothkopf, for joining us. We appreciate it.

ROTHKOPF: Thank you.

GORANI: And you can go to our Facebook page,

After being stranded on the Mediterranean for days, more than 230 people stuck on a rescue boat are finally hearing that they will be taken in by

Europe. Four E.U. countries, Italy, Malta, France and Portugal have agreed to accept the migrants who are on the ship called Lifeline.

Meantime, Italian authorities have allowed more than 100 people rescued by a Danish cargo ship to get off in Sicily after a four-day standoff.

Still to come, taken from their mother right after they were born and allegedly given to government supporters. Now the scandal over Spain's

stolen babies heads to court. We'll be right back.


[15:45:19] GORANI: In Spain, an 85-year-old has become the first person to go on trial over a historic national scandal. It's one that said to have

involved thousands of babies being taken from their parents. All part of a sinister political practice that began after the Spanish civil war. Atika

Shubert has our report.


ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Spanish doctor, Eduardo Vela listened in silence to the charges he faces in court, accused of

taking a baby girl from her mother in 1969, forging her birth certificate and giving her illegally to another woman. That baby was Ines Madrigal and

she watched Dr. Vela, now 85, denied all the charges. He says he has dementia.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you remember what was the protocol to follow when a woman was admitted to the clinic to give birth?

DR. EDUARDO VELA, ACCUSED GYNECOLOGIST (through translator): I did not know anything apart from medical matters. I didn't know.

SHUBERT: CNN met Ines Madrigal in 2012. We interviewed her and her adoptive mother, Ines Perez.

INES PEREZ, ADOPTIVE MOTHER (through translator): She wasn't adopted. She was given as a present for taking care of a boy. They didn't give me

flowers or money. They gave me a baby girl.

SHUBERT: She said the Dr. Vela had given her daughter as a gift for her volunteer work at an orphanage and even advised her how to pad her bellies

with pillows to fake a pregnancy before coming to his clinic.

PEREZ (through translator): Don't go to the hairdresser, no makeup. Put on a sad face and act like you feel nauseous. Look like you're in pain.

The doctor told me to do all that.

SHUBERT: She was also given this, a falsified birth certificate with the Dr. Vela's signature. When her adopted daughter turned 18, Ines Perez told

her the truth. A DNA test proved they were not related. At the time, Ines madrigal told us she was determined to convince prosecutors a crime had

been committed.

INES MADRIGAL, ADOPTED AS A BABY (through translator): I have to prove everything. Why don't they have to prove something? The prosecutors are

closing their eyes to this.

SHUBERT: Ines Perez passed away two years ago before she had a chance to see her daughter bring Dr. Vela to court. To this day, she does not know

who her biological mother is.

In front of the court, Madrigal said she never questioned her relationship with the mother that raised her, even as the case against the Dr. Vela


MADRIGAL (through translator): No, never. It got better, maybe. She was an elderly woman by then. She had no problem being charged by the judge as

an accessory to the crime. Until her last days, she proved her strength. Always with her truth and was unbreakable. I only feel thankful towards


SHUBERT: In Spain, there are thousands of so-called Ninos Robados or stolen children, illegal and forced adoptions that stretch back more than

70 years ago when the country was racked by civil war and then oppressed by a dictator, Francisco Franco. Franco had a policy of taking the children

of political prisoners and placing them in pro-government families. Prosecutors and lawyers say that laws back then allowed for no questions

asked adoptions. Doctors were not required to put the name of biological mothers on birth certificates, extensively to protect unwed mothers. And

catholic institutions issued baptism certificates in lieu of birth certificates. That made it easier for illegal adoptions to flourish well

into the 1990s. Dr. Vela denies forging any birth certificates.

This photo was taken in 1982 at his clinic by an investigative journalist. A frozen baby girl, umbilical cord still in tacked. German Gallego says he

took the photo after hearing rumors that Dr. Vela was falsely telling mothers their newborns had died. Then selling them for adoption. The

nurses he said explained how it worked.

[15:50:14] GERMAN GALLEGO, PHOTOJOURNALIST (through translator): Then one nurse said, sometimes women want to see the baby's body to see that it's

dead. So she said, they keep one in the fridge. I said, no, I didn't believe it.

SHUBERT: And what about those babies that were born here? Madrigal is the first to bring Dr. Vela to court and she hopes her case will help others to

find, if not justice, at least the truth.

Atika Shubert, CNN.


GORANI: Prince William has paid his respects to genocide victims at Israel's holocaust memorial. He called his visit a profoundly moving

experience. This is the first official visit to Israel by a member of the British royal family. The Duke of Cambridge also met with the Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Rivlin.

Now, this is unusual, because President Rivlin asked the duke to deliver a message of peace to Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. But the British

Ambassador to Israel stressed the trip is not a political visit and members of the royal family are meant to not engage in political negotiation or

even express their political opinion.

Meantime, Netanyahu's office says it regrets any distress or discomfort caused when an Albanian journalist was refused entry to the prime

minister's residence. Ahead of a meeting between Netanyahu and the Duke of Cambridge. He's an Associated Press journalist. He's been based in the

country for several years. He was barred from the event in what the Foreign Press Association is calling a blatant case of ethnic profiling.

The FPA says the journalist's colleagues were asked about the man's religion and whether he is a Muslim. The prime minister's office said the

incident was caused by human error.

We'll be right back.


GORANI: If you use an Uber and you're in London, good news. The ride- sharing app has won the right to keep operating in the British capital. A court ruled in favor of Uber granting it a 15-month license. The firm was

forced to appeal after London's transport authority declined to renew its license back in September. Officials have cited several concerns,

including how Uber reported serious crimes. But here you go. Uber, good to go for at least 15 more months.

Right now, two pivotal matches in the World Cup in Russia have just wrapped up. Nigeria versus Argentina and Iceland against Croatia. We'll get to

those in a moment.

But first, exciting news for Danish fans. Their team is through. They drew against France. The French had already clinched a spot in the next

round. It's one of the most exciting match, should we say. In the other group, Peru beat Australia two-nail. But both teams failed to progress.

Meanwhile, just in the last few minutes, Croatia defeats Iceland 2-1. While Argentina has just beaten Nigeria. So that means Croatia and

Argentina advance. So for all of you hoping for Nigeria to make it, they were almost there. Let's get to Moscow for the latest. Amanda Davies is


So I know you spent some time with Nigerian fans and they must be terribly disappointed, because they almost -- they were almost there.

[15:55:01] AMANDA DAVIES, CNN INTERNATIONAL SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: They were, Hala. If the early game between Denmark and France was boring and we

didn't know what we were going to talk about, the last two hours, 90 minutes has more than made up for it. I don't even support any of these

teams and I am absolutely exhausted. We have seen the agony and the ecstasy of a World Cup football tournament. And what it means play out

blow by blow after the last 90 minutes. We knew that heading into this group, group D, anyone really was in with a shout of going through. And it

really did go backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards. Argentina's fans actually held a minute silence for their football team

earlier this week, such was their disappointment after their last match against Croatia. They were calling for the team to absolutely step up.

Boy, did they, to start with, Lionel Messi finally made it onto the score sheet against Nigeria. It looks like Argentina returned to corner. But

Nigeria were not giving up this World Cup without a fight. It's a very young, hardy Nigerian side. As you said when I spoke to their fans

yesterday, they were really excited. They felt that they could do it. Nigeria, equalized. And until very, very late on this evening, it looked

as if it was going to be Croatia and Nigeria going through. But, boy, Marcos Rojo stepped up for Argentina with just four minutes remaining.

There were tears. There were celebrations. Everybody throwing themselves onto the pitch. So, wow. It is Croatia and Argentina going through to the

second round from this evening' games. But utter heartbreak for Iceland in their first World Cup and Nigeria as you said.

GORANI: All right. Absolutely. And we were treated to some fantastic Maradona facial expressions throughout the game. So that was interesting

as well.

Amanda Davies, thanks very much, joining us from Moscow. And catch Amanda and the rest of team with their World Cup coverage later. I'm Hala Gorani.

Stay with CNN. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is next.