Return to Transcripts main page
Supreme Court Finds Trump Administration May Use Pentagon Funds for Border Wall Construction; President Trump Makes Controversial Tweet about Representative Elijah Cummings' District; U.S. Reaches Agreement that Guatemala Will be Harbor for Central American Asylum Seekers; House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler Seeking Release Special Counsel Mueller's Grand Jury Materials; Balcony Floor Collapses in a South Korean Nightclub where U.S. Water Polo Teams Celebrating; Police Attack Protestors in Hong Kong; Democratic Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Campaign in New Hampshire; Democrat Presidential Candidates Prepare for Second Debate; Manhunt Underway in Canada for Two Teens Accused of Killing Three People; Facebook Fined $5 Billion by Federal Trade Commission. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired July 27, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: -- $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for construction along the southwestern border. But the fight is not exactly over. Yesterday's decision lets the Trump administration tap into the money while a lower court decides if the president had the power decides to divert funds when he declared a national emergency back in February. CNN's Boris Sanchez joining us now from the White House. So is this victory lap a bit premature?
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You could certainly see it that way, Fred. This is a victory for the White House, but it does come with a caveat. You're right, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether it was appropriate for the White House to use this money as a lower court determines whether it's appropriate for the White House to use this money, period. In other words, the Supreme Court ultimately decided to unfreeze these funds as the bigger case makes its way through the lower courts.
So ultimately the Supreme Court can decide that it's inappropriate for President Trump to use these military funds to build his long-promised border wall. President Trump is celebrating anyway. Here's what he tweeted out this morning. The president writing, quote, "Wow, big victory on the wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows southern border wall to proceed. Big win for border security and the rule of law." So no question, this is a win for the White House, albeit a temporary one because so far it hasn't been determined ultimately whether the president can use that money or not in the long term, Fred.
WHITFIELD: All right. And then, Boris, there has been swift reaction to the president's Twitter attack on Elijah Cummings. The president writing Cummings, I'm quoting now, "district is a disgusting rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous and filthy place." That coming from the president's Twitter. So Boris, talk to me about the reaction not just from Cummings but from the House Speaker and other fellow members of Congress.
SANCHEZ: Yes, that's right, Fred. This comes on the heels of the president's attacks on other Democrats of color. So there are obviously questions about race baiting and the stylistic questions about a president speaking this way about a member of Congress and about a community in which a diverse group of people live, not only ethnically, but also in terms of income. The president's tweet, to say the least, is misinformed.
Representative Cummings fired back on Twitter. Take a look at what he sent out, writing, quote, "Mr. President, I go home to my district daily. Each morning I wake up and go and fight for my neighbors. It is my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch, but it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also weighed in, Fred. She writes that Representative Cummings is a champion in the Congress and the country for civil rights and economic justice, a beloved leader in Baltimore and deeply valued colleague. We all reject racist attacks against him and support his steadfast leadership." She writes a hashtag, "#ElijahCummingsIsAPatriot."
We should point out this attack from President Trump coming just a few days after Elijah Cummings was on the House Oversight Committee challenging DHS officials on the issue of immigration. President Trump clearly not taking well to that, and this is ultimately how he lashes out, Fred.
WHITFIELD: Boris Sanchez, thank you so much.
With me right now, Caitlin Dickerson, a national immigration reporter for the "New York Times," and Laura Barron-Lopez, a national political reporter for "Politico." Good to see you both. So, Laura, you first. Let's talk just briefly about the president's Twitter rant, how he wants to spent time doing this, singling out a leader of Congress who so many have said is in exemplary fashion is an advocate for so many, and the president would take it to these levels, using the word "infestation," "rat," all that. What's this all about? Why does he keep doing this?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "POLITICO": So he does this because he knows that it riles up his base. This is a pattern with President Trump. He has said this not only about Cummings, but he said this about four elected women of color in tweets just a few weeks ago, saying they could go back to countries from which they came when actually three of those women -- all of them are American citizens, but three of them were born in the United States, which then elicited a "send her back" chant at his North Carolina rally.
And this is a strategic move by Trump. It's one that he knows plays well with his base. And he very much, whether it's from immigration or these tweets about Cummings, is hoping to make the 2020 election about racial identity, which is something he did as well in 2016.
WHITFIELD: And, Caitlin, you don't even want to dignify the president's tweet by having to talk about it. Yet at the same time it needs to be talked about because this is the leader of the country, the leader of the country making such disparaging remarks about fellow leaders of this country and in this election season. People have choices to make.
[14:05:13] CAITLIN DICKERSON, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": That's right, it's unfortunate to have to have this conversation at all. But it is important to point out, as we are here, that the president is drawing from an age-old playbook, if you will, over how to invoke race-based smear campaigns and how to stoke support by doing so. He's done it in campaign rallies, he did it after protesting in Charlottesville. It's not a mystery, but it is important to point out that it's a strategic move. It's not an accident that words like "infestation," that rats and rodents are being invoked. It's something that we've seen so many times in history, and he's repeating that now.
WHITFIELD: OK, so now let's talk about this Supreme Court decision allowing the president, at least temporarily, to use U.S. military money for his wall project. And this really helps, Laura, the president revive his mantra during the 2016, build the wall, build the wall, and now he's able to step it up a notch. How advantageous, even if it's temporary, might it be for the president?
BARRON-LOPEZ: This is definitely something the president is going to be talking about nonstop. Immigration is going to be a huge policy issue for him heading into the 2020 election. But it's also important to point out that while he may have had a small victory when it comes to being able to use these funds in the immediate sense to try to get the ball rolling on building a wall, one of his big promises during the 2020 election was that Mexico would pay for the wall. And that's the case with the victory that he is claiming from the Supreme Court. This money is coming --
WHITFIELD: Might his supporters have forgotten about that?
BARRON-LOPEZ: Potentially, although, I find it surprising that they would have given it was one of his biggest claims during the 2016 campaign. But this money is coming from military personnel and from training programs.
WHITFIELD: And when we say this ruling might give the president temporary license to use that money because there's still a lower court that has to decide whether the president did a good job establishing that this was a national security issue, a national emergency in which to have this wall built.
So Caitlin, the president also touting yesterday this agreement, an agreement with Guatemala that it would act as a place in which migrants could stay if they were speaking asylum. But it's still unclear the details of this arrangement with Guatemala. Where does this take the president in his direction of securing the border or using methods, perhaps even this plan, as a deterrent for those seeking asylum.
DICKERSON: Sure. I think that we can think about actually both of these, what we're calling wins, the Supreme Court's decision on a border wall and this what's known as a safe third-country agreement with Guatemala, as symbolic victories, perhaps, for the president but ones that have really significant practical down sides.
I've covered immigration for a long time. There is consensus among federal enforcement officials that a wall is not necessary to decrease the already lowering numbers of border crossings illegally across the southwest border. And when you look at the agreement made with Guatemala, this is one to require Central Americans to apply for asylum in Guatemala first before they can come to the United States.
But, Fred, the majority of people who are seeking asylum in the United States right now are from Guatemala. So the idea that they will find, that other Central Americans might find a safe haven in Guatemala, those who are fleeing persecution and violence, is really hard to understand. It's also important to mention that this agreement that the Guatemalan government made flies in the face of a recent high court decision there that determined the Guatemalan president could not sign an agreement with the United States government without approval from the Guatemalan congress. They've gone ahead and done so anyway.
So these are two symbolic wins, sure, for the president, but ones that when you look at the police, when you look at the actual numbers and the way the immigration system is going to be affected, they don't make practically make sense or follow along with what experts on both sides of the aisle are suggesting.
WHITFIELD: And Laura, what would be the incentive for Guatemala to engage in plan like this that would mean, whether it's Salvadorans or Hondurans, anybody who would be trying to seek asylum in the U.S. would then make Guatemala home if not temporary, then permanently?
BARRON-LOPEZ: Right. There have been questions about Trump placing pressure on these Latin American countries, whether by tariffs or whether by different agreements that they could potentially have.
[14:10:06] And so the increased pressure from the administration on trying to come to the table on these agreements I think is what maybe forced Guatemala's hand. Of course, Caitlin has covered this much more extensively and I think she might have a bit more details on that.
DICKERSON: The United States is a very important trade partner for Guatemala. Mexico, Central America rely very significant on the United States government in order to trade, in order to support their own economies. And so that's why you've seen the Guatemalan government move forward with this agreement. That's why you've seen the government of Mexico agree to crack down on asylum seekers who are crossing through that country, because the United States has a lot of power over the economies of these places, and President Trump is using that to try to achieve his own goals even if it means keeping legitimate asylum seekers out of the United States.
WHITFIELD: Largely for agricultural reasons. Caitlin Dickerson, Laura Barron-Lopez, good to see you both. Thank you so much.
BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.
DICKERSON: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: Still ahead, Democrats in the House taking a bold new step as they seek impeachment proceedings against the president. Plus, riot police charge a group of protestors in Hong Kong as demonstrations take a violent turn there. More coming up.
[14:15:00] WHITFIELD: Welcome back. As President Trump openly feuds with House Democrats, the number of them calling for impeachment is growing, now at 101. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler escalating the fight, saying he's going to court early next week to try to enforce a subpoena for former White House Counsel Don McGahn, a key witness that could prove to be a big step into launching an impeachment inquiry.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERROLD NADLER, (D-NY) HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: We are continuing an investigation of the president's malfeasances, and we will do what feel -- and we will consider what we have to consider, including whether we should recommend articles of impeachment to the House. That's the job of our committee. We may decide to recommend articles of impeachment at some point, we may not. That remains to be seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: I'm joined now by Michael Zeldin who once served as a special assistant to Robert Mueller at the Justice Department. Good to see you, Michael.
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Fred.
WHITFIELD: So Nadler asking a federal judge, Friday, to release Mueller's grand jury materials. What kind of material would be in there to help support any kind of impeachment inquiry?
ZELDIN: All of the underlying witness testimony is what is contained within the grand jury that Nadler wants to see. So it's a way of getting the testimony of witnesses that the White House has blocked from appearing before his committee, so it's a backdoor way to try to get to see what they said directly.
WHITFIELD: OK, so Congress has the sworn duty, right, and responsibility of impeachment, oversight as a real process of holding the president accountable. But Nadler is essentially circumventing the process, saying his committee has in effect been conducting an impeachment inquiry. Could that backfire? Is there any real difference there, even?
ZELDIN: I'd like to think of what Nadler is saying or interpret what Nadler is saying as saying he's conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine whether or not a full impeachment hearing and articles of impeachment are warranted. So he's taking the preliminary steps to gather the information that he feels he needs to reach a determination as to whether that full impeachment inquiry is warranted by the facts.
Whether it could backfire is a political question, and we'll just have to see whether the American people are tired of this, or the Mueller testimony still spurs them to want to know more.
WHITFIELD: And in fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is saying essentially wait, gather more information, that it is vital to do so. So without grand jury materials or any kind of subpoena enforcement, is there another route in which to get information, the kind of information that Pelosi or even Nadler would be talking about?
ZELDIN: It's going to require court assistance for that to happen. The president has asserted executive privilege and other immunities for these witnesses that have been called. Congress and others have sought from the courts relief from that objection, and if the courts comply, then they'll get that information that way.
But otherwise, if the stonewalling continues and the grand jury material is not presented, then Nadler may have to open a full impeachment proceeding in order to give the committee more rights to get this information, because once you open up a full impeachment -- call it an impeachment inquiry, your rights to gather information expand.
WHITFIELD: Michael Zeldin, thanks so much. We'll leave it there for now.
ZELDIN: Thanks, fred.
WHITFIELD: Still ahead, a chaotic scene in South Korea. More than a dozen hurt, two killed when a nightclub balcony collapses. Among the injured, several American athletes. Details right after this.
[14:22:39] WHITFIELD: Welcome back. We're following this developing news in Hong Kong where anti-government protests are turning increasingly violent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Police in riot gear are launching tear gas at protestors who were marching against last weekend's violence that left 45 people injured. Police later confronted a group of protestors at the airport train station as the demonstrators emptied fire extinguishers toward officers. CNN's Anna Coren tells us what happened when she got caught up as police charged a sit-in at the subway station.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We were outside the
train station, and normal riot police had arrived. They were telling us to move on. It was really just the media. We came up the escalators, and this is where inside the train station which is where the attacks last Sunday took place were a few hundred protestors, probably about 100 media and 150 hardcore protestors. And when I say hardcore, the ones who haven't gone home as yet.
Anyway, we were standing there, waiting to do the live shots with you, and suddenly tactical police ran up the stairs, up the escalators, charged at not just protestors, but also at the media. They hit our security guard with a baton. And they were just -- they were just hitting people, hitting people left, right and center. It was absolute chaos.
Suddenly everybody then surrounded them, and I guess there was this feeling of, what are you doing? Why are you behaving this way? Particularly considering we've been here since 3:00 this afternoon and things have been quite orderly with the police. They move in a line. They beat their shields. They come up with a sign, I should say, telling protestors they're going to disperse tear gas. They fire the tear gas. People retreat.
But now that they're cornered inside this train station, for the tactical police to run up these elevators and just start hitting people. It was just absolute pandemonium. It was nothing that we have ever witnessed before.
[14:25:04] And the protestors as well, they despise the police after the brutality that happened on the first of July, after the attacks that took place here last Sunday, it took police more than 40 minutes to respond. And then for these tactical police to charge protestors and the press. We are wearing bibs. We are wearing bibs. I'm not quite sure what is happening now. OK, it looks like they are -- there's an older man, they're asking protestors to go home, to go home. That is what he is saying. He's asking people to go home. Certainly, from some of the protestors that we've spoken to -- that's right. But from the protestors we have spoken to, they can't believe that the police behaved this way.
WHITFIELD: All right, Anna Coren, thank you so much for your reporting out of Hong Kong.
A championship celebration quickly turned to chaos for the U.S. water polo team. Last night four players from the men and women's teams were injured when a balcony at a nightclub in South Korea collapsed. Two South Koreans died. CNN Sports Correspondent Patrick Snell with me now. So thankfully those athletes did not get seriously injured, but this was a deadly accident. Pretty frightening.
PATRICK SNELL, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact, Fred, that, sadly, two people did die in the incident, two South Korea natives according to reports there. But broadening it out, this was an event taking place, this was a nightclub close to the athletes' village there in Gwangju in South Korea. And at the end of competition, it would be traditional for athletes to go out and enjoy responsibly a night out and let your hair down, so to speak. And that's what was happening here. The U.S. teams, both men and the women, they were celebrating yet another success, a third straight title for the women's water polo team, a fantastic achievement in itself, beating Spain in the showdown there.
But what happened here was that there were injuries to four athletes in total. I do want to quickly run through them and we can put names on them as well. On the U.S. women's water polo team, first up, Kaleigh Gilchrist, she actually suffered a laceration to her leg that would require surgery in that case. Her teammate, Paige Hauschild, as well she suffered injuries, along with the men's, on the men's side of things, the water polo players there, Johnny Hooper and Ben Hallock they were also hurt. But we do understand the good news that they're not serious injuries.
We did also get a statement as well from the U.S. Federation for that particularly sport confirming that incident in the nightclub. I want to get to this, the salient part. "All USA Water Polo athletes are safe and accounted for." Thoughts are with all of those as well. Also sending out thoughts and prayers as well to all concerned.
And I do want to note as well, Fred, that There were other countries, athletes from other countries as well, including New Zealand and Australia, and again, happy to report there that no injuries, no serious injuries to those athletes.
WHITFIELD: And this was as simple as just the building, a portion of it, just compromised.
WHITFIELD: It collapsed.
SNELL: Yes, right. The balcony up above, reports indicate that an investigation is ongoing. We'll continue through the weekend, I'm quite sure, and beyond to try and ascertain exactly what happened in that nightclub.
As for the U.S. teams, next order of business for them, if you like, there off to Lima, Peru, for the Pan American Games. We have the opening ceremony to that on Friday down there in Lima. So that's now officially under way. They're going to be beginning competition there August the 4th. So again, it will be interesting to see, are we going to be seeing those athletes like Kaleigh Gilchrist, for example, Paige Hauschild competing.
WHITFIELD: With injuries.
SNELL: Right. We'll be watching that very closely. Of course, next year it's the really big one, the summer games, the Olympics in Tokyo, Japan.
WHITFIELD: That's right. And hopefully everybody is ready for that one. Patrick Snell, thank you so much, appreciate it. Still to come, 2020 candidates preparing for round two of the CNN Democratic debates are now just three days away. So what they each need to do to break away from the crowded field, next.
[14:32:56] WHITFIELD: This weekend 2020 Democrats are canvassing across the country, making their cases to voters ahead of next week's CNN debates. And among them, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is hosting two events in New Hampshire this afternoon. She'll take part in a town hall in just a couple of hours. CNN Political Reporter Rebecca Buck is in New Hampshire.
REBECCA BUCK, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: That's right, Fred. We're here in New Hampshire with Elizabeth Warren. It's her first of two campaign spots today on this pre-debate weekend. She is trying to carry this momentum from the campaign trail all the way to Detroit on Tuesday night when she's going to be sharing the stage with Bernie Sanders. They're first meeting on the same stage in this race. And of course, they are the two liberal icons in this race, both jockeying for a very similar part of the electorate.
And so we're waiting to see will Elizabeth Warren try to start trying to start drawing contrasts with Bernie Sanders, will she stick to her stump speech, her core message on the debate stage here today in New Hampshire.
I want to bring in Rob. He's a community organizer. He's here attending this Warren event that going to be begin shortly here in Bow, New Hampshire. And he isn't yet supporting a candidate in the race, but I would like to get your take, Rob, on what you want to see from Elizabeth Warren in this debate on Tuesday?
ROB CLAFLIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE GRASSROOTS ORGANIZER: I think the real key question is the difference between the public option and Medicare for all. And if she can explain what I have yet to hear anybody who favors Medicare for all explain exactly what would happen in the first year of that transition from private health care to Medicare for all. And I think it's a very difficult sell, but I'd love to hear her tell us how she plans on doing it.
BUCK: And what do you think she should do with Bernie Sanders on that stage? Do you think it's important that she draw contrast with Sanders on policies, style, or do you think she should just stick to her own policy and her own platform.
CLAFLIN: I think she should stick to her own policy and her own platform. She's really doing great here in New Hampshire. She's got maybe the best organization in New Hampshire, and she's setting out to buy coffee for every voter in New Hampshire, and she's well on the way to doing that.
[14:35:06] So she's doing just fine. And I think she should stay out of interparty squabbles and just tell us what she plans to do.
BUCK: Thank you so much. I know you'll be watching the debate on Tuesday. And of course, we will be watching as well.
Elizabeth Warren hit a very important milestone this week in her campaign, meeting one million donations for the very first time, a huge number for her campaign, reflecting the enthusiasm that we're seeing in the polling and on the campaign trail. The question, of course, heading into Detroit is will Elizabeth Warren be able to build and continue that momentum. We're going to see here today the approach she's taking, the themes she's hitting, the message that we might hear from her later this weekend. Fred?
WHITFIELD: All right, Rebecca Buck, thank you so much.
Some of the other candidates also out on the campaign trail honing their messages today as they prepare to face off in the debates. As Gloria Borger explains, for those who don't find a way to stand out on a crowded stage, it could mean the end of the campaign.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: At his kickoff rally, California Congressman Eric Swalwell was center stage. But at the first primary debate, he was nearly off the stage.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL, (D) CALIFORNIA: Walking out is -- that is really intimidating. You're just pointing to people. I don't know if I know you or not. But I'm pointing, I'm waving, and you feel like you're just completely vulnerable, and everyone is looking at you.
BORGER: That debate would be his last.
SWALWELL: Today ends our presidential campaign.
Our JUST polling stayed flat. IT didn't go anywhere.
BORGER: Remaining at less than one percent. And as the field lines up for the two CNN debates, the pressure is really on, because in the fall, securing podium spotting will be twice as hard. So Detroit could be the end of the trail.
ROBBY MOOK, 2016 HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Maybe 12, 13 candidates, there's not going to be another shot after this. To some extent not qualifying for the next debate is a death sentence.
STUART STEVENS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: There's a lot of ways to screw up at a debate. What's essential is to think about what can I do so that there won't be a total disaster here.
BORGER: McCain attack phrases, Bradley attack praises.
Stuart Stevens has prepped Republican candidates from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to Mitt Romney.
STEVENS: Ideally before a debate, you look at your polling and you'd say, who do I need to talk to? You would never make an ad that just says, I don't know, I'm not sure if it's going to apply to you. It would be like shooting a shotgun in the air and hoping the ducks fly by.
MOOK: What really drives coverage in these debates is friction. It is taking someone on.
BORGER: As Kamala Harris did, attacking Joe Biden's record on bussing.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, (D-CA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bussed to school every day. And that little girl was me.
STEVENS: She's one once she says that because she's defined herself, and she got her bio. And you like that person and you're pulling for that person.
BORGER: So it didn't seem contrived?
STEVENS: There's a difference between prepared and contrived. I think prepared is you've thought about it. She's comfortable talking about race, and it shows.
BORGER: Biden was uncomfortable being challenged in that way, and that showed too.
STEVENS: You're president of the United States or you're vice president. You walk in a room, people usually applaud, and you're not used to having somebody get in your face.
BORGER: If you were advising Joe Biden right now, what would you tell him to do?
MOOK: Be on offense.
MOOK: Be on offense. You are there to win votes. You are not there to defend your lead.
BORGER: That's fine if you're Biden, or if you're Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders fighting over many of the same voters. But if you're not a name-brand candidate, breaking out can be hard to do.
STEVENS: There's other alternatives up there that are acceptable. There's always this question like, why are you on the shelf? Do we really need eight variations of barbecue potato chips?
SWALWELL: When you're speaking, you feel the glare of the moderators looking at you like you're not a top-tier person. Stop speaking.
BORGER: What are you doing here?
SWALWELL: Yes, yes. You can feel that.
BORGER: So you had like five minutes?
SWALWELL: Four minutes and 45 seconds.
BORGER: But who's counting? But who's counting? What can you do really in that amount of time?
SWALWELL: Have a moment that gets replayed.
If we're going to solve the issues of climate chaos, pass the torch. If we're going to solve the issue of student loan debt, pass the torch. If we're going to end gun violence for families who are fearful of sending their kids to school, pass the torch.
BORGER: Do you think you got a little too torchy there?
SWALWELL: Again, I thought all of these issues, as someone who has worked on gun violence and student loan debt, that many of them are generational.
BORGER: Did it look a little contrived, too many torches?
[14:40:00] SWALWELL: Yes, maybe I could have done one fewer torch.
BORGER: In these debates, preparation can be everything.
MOOK: You can't do it for five minutes here or there. They get no lifeline. It's them, it's the camera, the audience, the moderator, and the opponents.
BORGER: No phone a friend?
MOOK: There's no phone a friend. And they're going to sink or swim. And this is an important test in the process.
BORGER: And after all that studying and all those rehearsals, how does it feel backstage when your candidate goes off script?
MOOK: It's a very special feeling when you're standing there watching the television and you're thinking, what are they doing? That is not what we said, right? On the other hand, I will say, as a campaign manager, there is no way for you to know what it is like.
BORGER: Public failure is never easy, but with 20 candidates, it's more than likely.
STEVENS: You have to be willing, first of all, to admit that you're probably going to lose, and be willing to lose and stand for something. You can try too hard running for president, and it will always come back and bite you.
BORGER: So it's a fine line for every candidate on stage, impress, but don't look like you're trying too hard. You know, Fred, just be yourself.
WHITFIELD: So fascinating. Thank you, Gloria, appreciate it. And don't miss two big nights of CNN Democratic debates, this Tuesday and Wednesday, live from Detroit. It all starts at 8:00 each night only on CNN.
Up next, a massive man hunt under way in Canada. After several brutal murders. Police now say the killers could be getting help from unsuspecting people. More, right after this.
[14:45:42] WHITFIELD: Police in Canada are asking people to stay vigilant and alert as they track down two teens accused of killing three people. They say the suspects are considered armed and dangerous. And now police are stepping all patrols in rural north Manitoba. That's where the two suspects were last seen. This is new video of the suspects. Investigators think they may have changed their appearances to escape from the region. And they may have received help from a local unwillingly.
Police originally thought the teens had gone missing after discovering their burning car on the side of the highway, but now authorities call them the prime suspects in the killings of an American tourist and her Australian boyfriend, as well as a Canadian university lecturer. CNN's Polo Sandoval is tracking this developing story.
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Fred, that search is intensifying this weekend as authorities now going door to door in the small community in Gillam, Manitoba, in their search for these two subjects. Investigators have really been focusing on that small community of about 1,200 now for the last several days. That's where the suspects' vehicle was located on Monday, which was the last corroborated sighting of both Kam McLeod and Bryer Schmegelsky. Investigators believe that they likely could still be in that area. However, they do believe that a resident in and around that community may have unknowingly assisted the two in some way, shape, or form. But investigators not saying exactly how.
So they're releasing this surveillance video that was shot on Sunday in Saskatchewan in an attempt to try to generate some leads here. As for the residents in that small community of Gillam, many of them are living in fear according to our conversations that we have had with the deputy mayor there at this. Many of the residents there simply taking a wait and see kind of approach. But they're locking their doors, Fred.
WHITFIELD: Polo Sandoval, thank you so much for that.
Still ahead, Facebook forced to pay the largest fine in FTC history. An investigation finding the tech giant lost massive amounts of user data. More coming up.
But first, a former New York City police officer's opioid addiction almost killed him. But now he's taking control of his life, and he's helping others to do the same. His story is today's Turning Points. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARK RESTIVO, FORMER POLICE OFFICER AND ADDICT: I wanted to be a New York city police officer from the time I was a kid. I was never able to really apply myself to anything because I'd rather party. I used marijuana. I abused Adderall, cocaine, Oxycodone, Methadone. So it took me a little while. I didn't get into the police academy until I was 28.
I went cold turkey on the first day of the police academy from using pain killers. I didn't touch a pill for a couple of years, and then I got hurt. I was chasing after a few guys in a subway station. I got thrown down a flight of stairs, busted up my knee and my back. Before I left the hospital, they gave me a prescription for 10 Vicodin. By the time I got home that night, I was already through that prescription.
I wasn't aware that I was addicted until way after I retired from the police department. I was constantly buying and selling and using pills. I made about $5,000 a month.
My ex-wife forced me to go to treatment. I've been clean and sober for five-and-a-half years. I currently work with a long-term residential treatment facility with young men between the ages of 19 and 30. I like to share that I was a police officer. It could be anybody. There's no face to this addiction.
WHITFIELD: Welcome back. $5 billion, that's how much Facebook is being forced to pay up over privacy breaches. The social media giant reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission after a sweeping investigation revealed how the company lost control over massive troves of personal data and mishandled its communications with users. CNN tech reporter Donie O'Sullivan joining me right now. So Donie, good to see you. So this is the largest fine in FTC history, but it's not exactly hurting Facebook, is it?
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN POLITICS AND TECHNOLOGY REPORTER: That's right, Fred. Facebook really got off the hook here. It sounds strange to say that when it is a historic $5 billion fine. But when you put that in perspective, that is only about one month of the company's revenue. And in fact, when word of this fine came down a few weeks ago, Facebook's stock price actually went up. So I think they really did get away with quite a lot here.
And it was quite a serious breach of users' trust. There was multiple things here, including, of course, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but they were asking users for their phone numbers supposedly to help them as a security feature, to help them with their passwords, but they were actually targeting users with advertising using their phone numbers as a result of that.
WHITFIELD: So how does this deal with Facebook protect users from future privacy breaches?
O'SULLIVAN: Yes. So there's quite a few mechanisms in the deal for that, including that Mark Zuckerberg, the company's CEO, is going to have to personally certify that Facebook is complying with certain parts of this FTC order.
[14:55:00] But when you think about it and you look at this deal itself, regulators here really don't have much teeth. So it's difficult to see if Facebook does do this, will anything come of it, will they be enforced. And what's interesting that the FTC has five commissioners, three Republicans and two Democrats. And despite all of the talk from the Trump administration about being tough on big tech, it was the two Democrats that voted against this settlement from the FTC, saying that they were going too easy on Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg and Charles Hamburg (ph) weren't even deposed as part of this.
WHITFIELD: And now I want to ask you about 2020 Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. She was the most searched candidate during the first round of debates. And now her campaign is actually suing Google. Why?
O'SULLIVAN: Yes, that's right. We learned this earlier during the week that during the first Democratic debate, there was a huge surge of interest apparently in Tulsi Gabbard through Google searches in the U.S. In the days after that, Gabbard's Google ads account got suspended, which means that basically when you search Gabbard's name, what the campaign wanted to do was provide ads saying vote for Gabbard. It was suspended for a few hours, came back. Google says that it was a mistake. Gabbard says it was something more, that Google has it in for her campaign.
WHITFIELD: All right, Donie O'Sullivan, always good to see you. Thank you so much.
And thank you so much for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. We'll have so much more straight ahead in the Newsroom. I'll see you again tomorrow. Ana Cabrera is next.