Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Signs Asylum Agreement with Guatemala; Hong Kong Sees Eighth Consecutive Week of Protests; Search for Murder Suspects Focuses on Remote Canadian Area; White Helmets Photographer Killed in Airstrikes; Dems Taking Big Step toward Possible Impeachment by Suing for Secret Grand Jury Info from Mueller Report; Supreme Court Lets President Trump Proceed with Border Wall but Legal Fight Continues; Ole Miss Students Pose with Guns at Emmett Till Memorial; Mother Nature Has Final Say in Stage 19 of the Tour de France; Fortnite Esports Video Game Holds World Cup. Aired 3-4a ET

Aired July 27, 2019 - 03:00   ET

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

[03:00:00]

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Three words that defined a campaign. The Supreme Court clears the way for the U.S. president to make good on his promise for now.

And protesters in Hong Kong are gearing up for their eighth weekend march in a row. CNN is live on the scene.

Also wildfires are tearing through some Arctic regions. The flames are bad enough but the pollution is having a global effect.

Live from CNN Center, I'm Paula Newton. Great to have you with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

NEWTON: OK. You'll remember that moment. And from the moment he rode down that escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy, immigration has been the controversial rallying cry of Donald Trump's campaign. And his time now in the White House.

On Friday President Trump chalked up two big wins in that category. One, the U.S. signed an agreement with Guatemala. It limits migrants claiming asylum in the United States. We will have more on that in a moment.

First, a big win at the Supreme Court for the Trump administration. It clears the way for the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion of the Pentagon's money to build parts of that border wall. Senior White House correspondent Pamela Brown has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The president immediately hailed the decision by the Supreme Court that paves the way for Defense Department funds to be used for the wall.

The president tweeting shortly after the ruling, "Wow, big victory on the wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction allow southern border wall to proceed. Big win for border security and the rule of law."

This is certainly a significant Supreme Court ruling along ideological lines in the president's favor. It is not a permanent ruling. This can still play out in the lower courts. But certainly it hands the president a big win on the campaign trail because now he can tout to his supporters that he's following through on his 2016 campaign promise, that his wall is being built.

We should note that these funds that are being used will go also toward replacement fencing along with building new wall. All of this happened after the president directed funds from the Pentagon to be used for the wall after he didn't get what he wanted from Congress.

You'll recall that long government shutdown, 35 days. And after that the president ended it by directing the funds that he didn't get from Congress. Shortly after that, there were certain groups that challenged it in the courts and that is what led to this big support -- Supreme Court ruling.

A lower court actually agreed with those groups, saying that the president didn't have a right to divert funds, that Congress has the power of the purse. But the Supreme Court said that it disagreed, that these groups that brought the suit didn't have standing and that the government made a good case for that.

So again, this is a big win for President Trump and gives him a major talking point, at least for now, on the campaign trail -- Pamela Brown, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: President Donald Trump says he's dropping his threats against Guatemala after they signed an asylum agreement with the United States. The aim is to stem the flow of migrants into the United States. Mr. Trump calls it a win for both countries.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've been dealing for many years, I would say, with Guatemala and with other countries and we are now at a point where we are -- we just get along and they're doing what we've asked them to do and I think it's going to be a great thing for Guatemala. They don't want these problems, either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Gustavo Valdes takes a closer look at what each side is going to get out of this agreement.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GUSTAVO VALDES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: President Donald Trump praised the agreement between Guatemala and the United States but it is not clear if he got exactly what he wanted. For weeks now, both nations have been talking about a safe third

country agreement, which means that a person that goes from one nation has to request asylum in that country before getting to the next one.

Canada and the United States have a similar agreement, which means that somebody who goes to Canada cannot request asylum in the United States and vice versa.

But even though both nations, both countries had said that they had reached an agreement, the supreme court of Guatemala said that such agreement is not valid in that country. This made President Trump raise the threat level against Guatemala saying that he is ready to -- that he was ready to impose tariffs to all of the sanctions against Guatemala. He said --

[03:05:00]

VALDES: -- he was thinking even about a traveling ban to Guatemala into the United States but all of that was avoided with a signature in the Oval Office Friday afternoon, in which Guatemala agrees to process asylum claims for people from El Salvador and Honduras.

At the same time, the United States will make available temporary work visas for Guatemalans so they can come to the United States and work in agricultural jobs. President Jimmy Morales says this is a deal that is good for his country because it avoids the sanctions that President Trump threatened Guatemala with a few weeks ago.

Trump threatened Mexico with sanctions if they didn't act quickly to detain or to stop immigration. Mexico moved forward with the national guard, deploying it to its southern border to prevent people from crossing from Guatemala. Now Guatemala is giving in a little bit, being that country in which migrants have to request asylum.

But the details of this agreement are not very well known yet and the effects will be known in the next few days, especially because it has been controversial in Guatemala and in the United States, where critics say this agreement is going to be dangerous for people trying to get to the United States and escape violence -- Gustavo Valdes, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: So what is the safe third country agreement?

You heard Gustavo talk a little bit about it there. There is already an agreement in place between Canada and the United States, that anyone seeking asylum must make the claim in the first country they arrive in, not in the country where they want to live.

Now this new agreement with Guatemala seems to be very similar to that. For example, asylum seekers headed to the United States through Guatemala will have to apply for asylum in Guatemala first. If they wait and apply at the U.S. border first, they may be returned to Guatemala. Here's where things may end up being a little bit different. It ends

up opening the door to challenges. Under the safe third country agreement, safe means asylum seekers should not be returned to their country where safety is in jeopardy.

Canada and the United States regard each other as safe for refugees but there are standards. Critics say Guatemala doesn't meet them. USAID reports nearly half of the country's children suffers from malnutrition. The homicide rate is more than 22 per 100,000 people.

By comparison, the U.S. rate is just over five per 100,000. A recent United Nations report found that 98 percent of crimes in Guatemala went unpunished next year.

Eric Schwartz is the president of Refugees International. He joins me from Washington.

We just laid it out there in terms of statistics but the State Department's own travel advisory says violent crimes, such as armed robbery, murder, is common; gang activity such as extortion, violent street crime and narcotics trafficking is widespread. This is mirrored in a State Department report from 2018.

Eric, from your perspective, what is this all about?

ERIC SCHWARTZ, REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL: Well, I think the agreement is designed to keep Central Americans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans out of the United States but it's grotesque and it's mischievous because it uses the language of refugee protection.

It uses the language of refugee protection to attempt to execute an agreement, which is going to have dramatic impact on the lives of thousands of Central Americans.

It essentially says that any Salvadoran or Honduran who shows up at a U.S. border will be sent to Guatemala, a country that has no significant capacity to process asylum seekers and a country that is dangerous, in which those that are sent to Guatemala are likely to be at grave risk.

So it's just so terrible. It's just such a terrible agreement. It's so nasty and, as I say, it uses the language of refugee protection to create an outcome which will put the lives of thousands of Central Americans at grave risk.

NEWTON: And I want to get to that issue of refugee protection for a minute and where it comes to law.

SCHMIDT: Sure.

NEWTON: The president says we're going to give them temporary visas to come and work on farms. This is an agreement. Perhaps we can --

[03:10:00]

NEWTON: -- improve the situation. That's what Guatemala was getting in return.

SCHMIDT: Well, the details on that, you know, have not yet come forward. Yes, I've seen a statement I believe from the Guatemalan government that made reference to I believe H2A visas, agriculture visas. And there may be some benefits for some Guatemalans.

But that's not the real story here. The real story here is what will happen to thousands of Central Americans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans, that are sent back to Guatemala.

It's not clear this will be implemented immediately because the provisions of the agreement indicate that each government has to essentially go through their own processes and the Guatemalan constitutional court says it has to be approved by the Guatemalan legislature.

NEWTON: The business community in Guatemala has put up a huge fight because they want this in place because Donald Trump has threatened them economically.

Getting back to the legality of this and the way refugees should be treated internationally, in the U.S. Supreme Court, we saw a decision on the wall today, 5-4 to what the president wanted.

Do you think there would be a good case to challenge this in the United States on the laws --

SCHMIDT: Yes.

NEWTON: -- that the United States is already obliged to follow under the refugee policy?

SCHMIDT: Yes. This is a violation of both U.S. law and U.S. obligations under international refugee law. U.S. law requires that if we're going to have one of these agreements -- and the only agreement the United States has ever had with another government like this is with the government of Canada.

And that stands to reason because if you're going to have an agreement on the transfer of asylum seekers, it's going to be with another country that is law abiding and safe. That's the logic of it.

So this is just ridiculous. But the law on safe third country, U.S. domestic law, passed by the Congress, says, number one, that the country concerned -- in the country concerned, an asylum seeker has to have access to full and fair procedures for asylum.

A Guatemalan official said I believe today that the entire government has about eight asylum officers or people in the office to handle these claims. So the notion that Guatemala has a full and fair procedure is ridiculous.

Secondly is that the United States cannot return anyone to a place where they will be at risk of persecution. And Guatemala is an extraordinarily dangerous place. Of the 10 top countries -- countries with the highest murder rates in the world, Guatemala is in the top 10.

NEWTON: That's the issue here, Eric. They don't want it to get to that point. They want it to act as a deterrent and as far as the president gets his wish on that, it will take months, perhaps years. Thanks for coming in with us today.

SCHMIDT: My pleasure.

NEWTON: To Hong Kong, where thousands of protesters are gathering in a small town on the border of Mainland China. The protesters have already lost their appeal to get official authorization for this rally you are seeing live pictures right there.

Police say it will in fact be an illegal assembly once 50 people show up. Pictures show there might already be more people. Police warn the march could cause severe threats to the public, like the violence that broke out last Sunday. That's when protesters were attacked by mobs of men in white shirts who carried iron bars and bamboo sticks.

Kristie Lu Stout is on the scene for us.

Kristie, they seem pretty determined that they're going to have this protest. As I was saying, police have issued a warning saying, look, this protest isn't legal.

Do they believe they will face consequences right now just for showing up there?

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN ANCHOR: They believe they could face consequences and that the risk is worth it. I'm in the far north of Hong Kong at a protest that is effectively an unlawful assembly.

Organizers had asked Hong Kong for permission to protest here. It was denied. The protesters wearing their black T-shirts are undeterred. They're holding up umbrellas because of the sheer heat. The humidity, the heat is on.

But protesters are angry. They want to condemn the scenes of all of the chaos that played out in the community last weekend when we saw the men in white t-shirts wielding sticks and white poles and beating passersby, journalists and protesters. And 45 people --

[03:15:00]

STOUT: -- hospitalized as a result of that assault. Police did make arrests, 12 people have been arrested and nine have Triad backgrounds. But it's not just the nature of the violence that's angered people here.

It's also the nature of the police response. Many people are here and are angry at what they see as a delayed police response. Police are reluctant to make arrests at the scene.

There was a press conference, standing next to the embattled police, defending the police response, they said there was no link to the Triads and saying the response is delayed due to the concentration of Hong Kong police in the central part.

But the protesters are not buying it and they are angry and risking arrest to come out here and protest. Back to you.

NEWTON: Kristie, you can hear them loud and clear there right now. You were talking about those confrontations. They were quite ugly and incredibly disturbing.

Has it been some kind of game changer in any way for those protesters behind you?

STOUT: It has because it has taken these protests to a darker area. You can recall just eight weeks ago -- this is the eighth consecutive weekend of protests in Hong Kong. This started as a largely peaceful protest against a single issue, that extradition bill.

I talked to protesters about why they are here. They're here for a variety of reasons. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't trust Hong Kong policy anymore. Now that they are cooperate against us to the -- for the protests here and they hit us without any reason.

STOUT: What would satisfy you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know if they're going to respond or I don't think they're going to answer anything. But we wanted them to hear our voice and hear what we want and let them know that we are -- we're not just going to suppress and just be silent. This is not the way. This is not Hong Kong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STOUT: Paula, the protesters are here because they're angry with the political institutions of Hong Kong. They're angry against the Triads and the Hong Kong police.

Earlier today I spoke to a group of masked young men. They were middle school students, young boys, 14, 15 years old. I asked them why they were here. They said they want their freedom. They want universal suffrage.

That is one of many demands of this protest movement as it continues to drag on this very long, hot summer of protests in Hong Kong. Back to you.

NEWTON: Speaking to that younger generation may be an indication of how determined those protesters are and will continue to be. Kristie, thank you for being on the scene. We'll continue to check in with you over the next few hours.

Two people were killed when the upper floor of a nightclub collapsed in South Korea. It happened in the southwest city of Gwangju. Rescue officials say 17 people were injured, including foreign athletes who were participating in the World Aquatics Championship.

People were reportedly dancing when the roof came down and that many people, unfortunately, were pinned under that rubble.

Canadian police continue to expand their search for two murder suspects. Ahead, we'll tell you what they're doing to try to locate the teenaged fugitives.

Plus, the civilian death toll in Syria is rising and the U.N. warns the world not to ignore the killing again. An update on the situation there.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:20:00]

(HEADLINES)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

NEWTON: The manhunt for two murder suspects in a rugged Canadian region is getting help from the military. Canada's public safety minister says the armed forces will soon supply air support. And police are knocking on every door in the small Manitoba town near where the suspects were last seen.

Police also released new video of the teenage fugitives. You see them there. They're suspected of killing three people, a Canadian, an Australian and his American girlfriend. Despite the search, authorities say someone may have inadvertently helped the suspects leave the area. And, of course, residents remain on edge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DENNIS CHAMPAGNE, GILLAM RESIDENT: Well, we're all a little bit jittery. Like I have grandkids in town and stuff like that, you know what I mean?

I don't sleep at night. I live right across the street behind the trapper shack. So, I mean, if they're around town here, you know, this fellow right down the street here and I are the closest ones, if they're coming out of the bush here. It's only 500 feet from the police station. I feel better about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: What people are not feeling better about is the fact that authorities are saying if you do see these suspects, do not approach them. They are dangerous and may have changed their appearance. That search continues in earnest on the ground and in the air.

We turn to a tragic update on a Syrian family behind this powerful photo. It shows the aftermath of an airstrike. You see them there; two sisters from the family have died as a result of their injuries. Now one of those girls was seen trying to save her baby sister from

falling from the ruined building. The baby survived but her sister did not. Four other children from the family are still being treated for their injuries.

OK. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights meantime is urging the world not to turn a blind eye to the Syrian government's offensive in northwest Syria.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBERT COLVILLE, U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: Several hundreds of thousands of children, women and men have been killed in Syria since 2011. As the high commissioner says, there are so many casualties that it's no longer even possible to give a credible estimate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: So no credible estimate. The civil war has also claimed the lives of those documenting the action. CNN's Jomana Karadsheh reports on a 23-year old photographer who died capturing the tragedy of war. A warning, her report contains graphic images.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even when --

[03:25:00]

KARADSHEH (voice-over): -- the world almost stopped paying attention, Anas Diab did not stop taking pictures, he wanted the world to see the living hell that his country had become. Diab's photographs brought us the worst of Syria today. like this heartbreaking image earlier this year of 6 year-old Hasna Patrun (ph), the lifeless hand under her knee was that of her 3 year-old sister. Her 1 year-old brother was also killed in that airstrike.

In the midst of tragedy, he never failed to also capture moments of innocence, the humanity that at times outlived the horrors of war, he was witness to some of the darkest atrocities of our time, the April 2017 chemical attack on his town of Khan Shaykhun.

Diab, a media activist and a member of the rescue group the White Helmets, was injured three times in recent years but that didn't stop the 23 year-old. He spent the past week documenting the brutal bombardment of Khan Shaykhun by the Syrian regime and its ally, Russia. And it cost him his life.

Diab was killed in an airstrike on Sunday, colleagues and friends gathered to pay their final respects and the White Helmets mourned, in a statement saying, quote, "Anas will always be remembered as the one who chose to stay behind the scenes and fight with his camera."

Thus the 24 hours after his death, there were more bodies to bury, more victims to mourn, lives lost in one of the bloodiest attacks in months on what's left of rebel-held Syria. That here has become normal, the everyday, that is what Anas Diab wanted the world to see, even as it turned the other way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the result of your apathy. This is the United States' apathy toward the Syria situation. We are getting shelled every day. We are getting killed every day. Please, Mr. Trump, please, please stop this.

KARADSHEH (voice-over): Jomana Karadsheh, CNN, Istanbul.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:30:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

NEWTON: And welcome back to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Paula Newton and here are the headlines this hour.

(HEADLINES)

NEWTON: We are back to you as politics now as House Democrats have escalated their pursuit of a possible impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Now even though former special counsel Robert Mueller failed to deliver the fireworks they had expected, their focus is now on obtaining secret grand jury testimony from Mueller's investigation. CNN's Manu Raju explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A major step forward for House Democrats. As they decide whether to impeach President Donald Trump.

In a new lawsuit, the House Judiciary Committee told a federal judge today, it needs secret grand jury information gathered by Robert Mueller because articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of its investigation. Although no file determination has been made.

After weeks of intense Democratic debate about next steps to fight the president, today Chairman Jerry Nadler and members of his committee said their probe is essentially the same as a formal impeachment inquiry.

RAJU (on camera): So you're saying there is no difference between what you are doing now and an impeachment inquiry, correct?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN: In effect. This is an impeachment investigation.

REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR (D-TX), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We're now crossing a threshold with the filing -- RAJU (voice-over): Nadler told reporters the only difference is that his committee investigation is broader than an impeachment inquiry. But acknowledged the end result could be the same.

NADLER: We are going to see what remedies we could recommend including the possibility of articles of impeachment. We are not limited to that. But it's very much a possibility as a result of what we're doing.

RAJU: The development comes amid a growing Democratic divide over how to move forward in the aftermath of Mueller's appearance before the House in which he testified about alleged crimes committed by the president but failed to deliver the commanding performance that many Democrats were hoping for. After the hearing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi renewed her push to fight the White House in court. But in what allies see as a shift, she is sounding open to the possibility of impeachment.

RAJU (on camera): Some of your Democratic colleagues believe you're simply trying to run out the clock on impeachment. Are you trying to run out the clock?

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: No, I'm not trying to run out the clock. Let's get sophisticated about this, OK. OK.

RAJU: But how long do you think the court fights will take?

PELOSI: We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed. Not one day sooner.

Their advocacy for impeachment only gives me leverage, so I'm willing to take whatever heat there is there to say when - the decision will be made in a timely fashion. This isn't endless.

RAJU (voice-over): Democrats have voiced concerns that the window is closing on launching an impeachment proceeding.

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D), TEXAS: I would certainly like to see us move more expeditiously.

RAJU: The House Judiciary Committee says today it also may file a lawsuit as soon as next week to try and force former White House Counsel Don McGahn to cooperate with its probe into potential obstruction of justice. After President Trump instructed McGahn not to comply with the subpoena. For weeks, sources say Nadler has privately argued to Pelosi their hand in court would be strengthened if they launched a formal --

[03:35:00]

RAJU (voice-over): -- impeachment probe. But publicly he stood by her side.

RAJU (on camera): Could there be a point, though, Mr. Chairman, where you break from the speaker and you announce publicly your support for impeachment? NADLER: We may decide to recommend articles of impeachment at some point. We may not. That remains to be seen. And there is no point in speculating on whether the Speaker or anybody else will agree with our decision at that point.

RAJU: One thing the Speaker has not been saying in recent days is that it's essentially fruitless for the Democratic White House to move forward with impeachment proceedings because if they were to approve it, it would die in the Republican led Senate.

She had actually been saying that for weeks but essentially has dropped that message in the last several days. Also I am told that new language in the lawsuit says the House Judiciary Committee is considering moving forward with articles of impeachment. I'm told the Speaker signed off on that language -- Manu Raju, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: Natasha Lindstaedt joins us now from Colchester, England. She is professor of government at the University of Essex.

Arguably, the Democrats are saying, look, we are on the road to impeachment but is that what is best for them politically, especially in the swing states, so crucial now, it's a risky strategy, isn't it?

NATASHA LINDSTAEDT, UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX: It is a little bit risky and we don't have much evidence of how this works in the past, other than when impeachment was pursued against President Clinton, his popularity rose; but when impeachment was pursued against President Nixon, they built a case and his approval rating really, really decreased over time to the point where it was hovering above 50 percent amongst Republicans.

So it could be as they initiate impeachment and start making the case more public that they're able to sway voters. But the issue is that you still have only 37 percent of the public right now in favor of impeachment and 46 percent opposed.

Among Democrats it's about 64 percent and 86 percent of Republicans oppose it and only 34 percent of independents are in favor of pursuing impeachment. The whole Mueller testimony, which I think Democrats were really hoping was going to sway the pendulum one way or another toward getting the public behind impeachment, didn't really do much to change public opinion. In fact, it didn't change much at all.

However, the Democrats are slowly building their case. There's more momentum growing and Nancy Pelosi is changing her language a little bit and is at least saying, go back to your districts and figure out what your constituencies want.

It's possible as they move forward that this momentum may gain more support.

NEWTON: Yes, it's going to be really interesting to see what their posture is when they come back from the recess. Now immigration has been a leading issue for 2020 again and as if on cue, the Supreme Court hands out victory to Donald Trump, ruled 5-4 that the president can use that $2.5 billion in defense spending to build that wall.

Democratic leaders immediately reacted and said this is a complete slap in the face to the authority of Congress. I want you to listen now to Donald Trump and a promise he made during the campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

Mexico whether pay for the wall.

And Mexico's going to pay for the wall.

And who's going to pay for the wall?

Mexico.

Who's going to pay for the wall?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: You know, that's unequivocal. It's undeniable. Mexico is not paying for the wall, the American taxpayer is paying for the wall.

And yet is there any other way to put this right now than he's going to be able to go on the election campaign and say, I got my wall?

LINDSTAEDT: Right. And I think we have to look to the fact that they've done a great job at least spinning this to their supporters, that this is something very, very necessary. Steven Miller went on FOX News and said basically you're un-American if you don't support Trump's wall and Trump's immigration policies.

That means you want immigrants to come in and take your jobs and engage in all kinds of acts of crime. So they're spinning in a way that makes their supporters amped up about the wall being built and Trump had even said that even though Mexico isn't technically paying for the wall, they're paying for it in other ways because Trump was able to engineer some great trade deal, which hasn't completely come to fruition yet.

Amongst everybody else, though, you're not talking about Trump's base, he said -- Trump said very clearly Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Instead, there's funds being diverted from the military to build a wall that is going against -- violating the environment, public communities, destroying wildlife and affecting --

[03:40:00]

LINDSTAEDT: -- people all across the border. So while there's going to be all kinds of lawsuits that I think will continue with the building of this wall, ultimately, I don't think this is a big win for him in terms of gaining more people to support him. It's mostly an unpopular decision and it looks as if he's really encroaching upon congressional powers by making this very important decision to divert funds from the military to build this wall. NEWTON: Natasha, Democrats certain hope you're right. But the president believes he now has a lot of ammunition on that campaign trail.

Thanks for joining us. Really appreciate it.

LINDSTAEDT: Thanks for having me.

NEWTON: Remember, don't miss that CNN Democratic presidential debate next Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Dana Bash, Don Lemon and Jake Tapper moderate July 30th and 31st, beginning at 8:00 pm in New York, 8:00 am Hong Kong time.

Wildfires are scorching parts of the Arctic. Scientists say the coldest places on Earth might not be quite so frigid for much longer. We'll have more on that.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

NEWTON: In the summer of 1955, a 14-year-old boy was murdered in the state of Mississippi. His name was Emmett Till. Now after almost 64 years, the pain of that killing so brutal and of that time lives on. And it's clear after what happened this week, so does the hate. Our Martin Savidge has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Money, Mississippi, the memory of a murder is still very much alive. Here on the banks of the Tallahatchie River in 1955, the tortured body of 14- year-old Emmett Till was recovered. He had been shot, lynched and beaten.

PATRICK WEEMS, EMMETT UNTIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER: 2008 was the first marker and it was the first time that this site --

[03:45:00]

WEEMS: -- had ever been marked or had ever told this story.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Till became an icon of the civil rights movement and this place became sacred. Yet it is routinely desecrated. The first sign was stolen. So they put up another.

WEEMS: That marker was up and then immediately we started getting bullet holes.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): The markers have literally become a target for hate, leaving the frequently bullet riddled.

SAVIDGE: So you take down the second and replace it with a third?

WEEMS: Yes.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): And that's the one in a now infamous photo, showing three white men from a fraternity at the University of Mississippi smiling, posing with guns and that marker is also bullet scarred.

There's no way to know if the bullet holes are the work of these men or others. The University of Mississippi condemned the photo; the fraternity has suspended the men. CNN is trying to reach them for comment. And now the third sign is taken down.

WILLIE WILLIAMS, EMMETT TILL COMMISSION: We will not retreat. We won't stop. There will be another sign up.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Just down the road I find the ruins of the local market where Till, visiting from up north, supposedly interacted with a white woman. In a Jim Crow South, that was enough to trigger his murder. And there was the courthouse where the two men accused of his brutal death were tried and acquitted by an all-white jury deliberating less than an hour.

Only Till's marker draws gunfire.

SAVIDGE: Do you ever reach a point of frustration, after your now third sign, going for four?

WEEMS: You know, there's frustration but then there's hope. The hope is that there's people around this country who care about this story, right, that Emmett Till did not die in vain.

MATT DILLING, SIGNMAKER: Hello, this is Matt.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): I call Matt Dilling in a Brooklyn warehouse. He's just finishing the fourth marker. It's pretty much bulletproof.

The marker itself is made of AR500 steel with a polycarbonate cover, which is this type of armored plate steel.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): It weighs 600 pounds and will be unveiled in October.

Meanwhile, Emmett Till's family calls the latest photo and vandalism "disappointing but not surprising."

SAVIDGE: But the Till family want something more substantial than just a bulletproof marker. They want justice. No one has ever been convicted for the murder of Emmett Till -- Martin Savidge, CNN, Money, Mississippi.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: And we will be right back with more news.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (WORLD SPORTS)

[03:50:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

NEWTON: At least eight people have been killed after twin earthquakes in the Philippines. The U.S. Geological Survey says a 5.9 magnitude tremor struck Batanes province Saturday morning. That was followed by a second, weaker quake. Some buildings were reduced to rubble in that popular tourist region.

Many residents were forced into streets after a church was damaged.

The Arctic is heating up so quickly that scientists say wildfires there are spreading faster than ever before and they're producing huge clouds of smoke which, is, in turn, choking the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, making the climate crisis even worse. Allison Chinchar explains.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, AMS METEOROLOGIST (voice-over): A ring of fire and smoke is now circling parts of the far north of our planet. Hundreds of fires in the Arctic Circle, primarily in Siberia and Alaska but also Canada and even Greenland are sending unprecedented levels of smoke into the atmosphere. This animation from the European Union's Copernicus program, with the North Pole in the center, shows the smoke from these fires in red, Alaska in the upper left and Siberia in the upper right.

The fires raging across Siberia are creating pollution in many other parts of Russia and even North Asia. One NASA scientist posted this image of a smoke lid over Russia, covering 4.5 million square kilometers, adding, "This is staggering."

The World Meteorological Organization warns the danger is not just from pollution.

CLARE NULLIS, WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION: It's the amplification effect on climate change, the fact that they're emitting so much carbon dioxide.

CHINCHAR (voice-over): While the data from July is not yet in, the amount of carbon dioxide from Arctic fires last month is startling.

NULLIS: In June alone these fires emitted 50 megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is the equivalent of Sweden's annual total CO2 emissions.

CHINCHAR (voice-over): Besides CO2 emissions, another impact of Arctic fires is the black soot that lands on the snow and ice, causing that ice to absorb sunlight that it would normally otherwise reflect. And that warms the Arctic even more -- Allison Chinchar, CNN.

(WEATHER REPORT)

[03:55:00] NEWTON: Gamers around the world are traveling to New York this weekend for a chance to win a $30 million prize. Fortnite is an unlikely phenomenon that's sweeping the globe. It's a multiplayer video game about an ecological crisis threatening the survival of humanity.

It's about to get its own World Cup. Some gamers make six figures playing Fortnite, like this team finalist, who gave it all up for a chance to win millions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIEL WALSH, FORTNITE PRO PLAYER: Fortnite definitely impacted my school because my grades started going down but I was like making a lot of money so it was like hard for me. I switched to online school right after I qualified for the World Cup.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Wow. Fortnite is rated T for ages 13 and up and while it certainly contains violence, its animation is cartoon-like. And apparently there's no blood and gore. That is little comfort, I can tell you, to the parents trying to get their kids to stop playing Fortnite.

In any case, thanks for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Paula Newton. CNN NEWSROOM with George Howell is up next.