Return to Transcripts main page
Hala Gorani Tonight
Cause Of Saudi Arabian Attack Still Unclear; Polls In Israeli Election Close In An Hour; Corey Lewandowski Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee; Iran's Supreme Leader Rules Out Negotiations With U.S.; U.K. High Court Hears Arguments Over Parliament Suspension; Trump's Ex-Campaign Manager Testifies In Impeachment Hearing. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired September 17, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Guest: Einat Wilf, Robin Wright, Robert Craig>
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:21]
HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone. Live from CNN London, I'm Hala Gorani.
Tonight, Saudi Arabia speaks, the energy minister talks as the nation faces the fallout of its attack on one of its oil facilities. Can the companies
stabilize oil prices and also the confidence on its own production?
Also, a tense and frankly awkward hearing in the U.S. capital as a former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, demands a lot from Democratic
members before he'll answer any questions. We are live in Washington.
Also tonight, Benjamin Netanyahu faces his biggest political test yet. My colleague Becky Anderson is in Jerusalem.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: That's right, Hala. Just under an hour until polls close, we'll look at what is at stake, who is likely to come out with
the most seats, and how difficult it still might be for that candidate to find a way to actually form a government -- Hala.
GORANI: All right, Becky, we'll see you in a bit.
We begin this hour with breaking news as the Saudi energy minister is talking about how his country is trying or will try to rebound from that
attack on one of its oilfields. Speaking just minutes ago, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said the kingdom is aiming to ramp up oil and gas
production as fast as possible, saying -- according to some reports -- that it could be back online early in the morning on Saturday. They will be
shooting for 11 million barrels per day by the end of this month, and 12 million by the end of November.
Meanwhile, a source familiar with the U.S. and Saudi investigations tells CNN there's, quote, "A high probability that the strikes were launched from
an Iranian base." The assessment is that the strikes used low-altitude cruise missiles, flown over Iraq in an effort to mask their origin.
However -- and this is important to underline -- neither country has produced any evidence of this. And it's worth noting that Iran has
consistently denied responsibility.
This, as U.S. officials tell CNN that Saudi Arabia has recovered circuit boards from one of the weapons used in the attack. It apparently missed
its target and landed in the desert, intact.
Nic Robertson is following developments from inside Saudi Arabia. Talk to us about the latest. There was a news conference from Aramco and also
Saudi officials speaking out about this attack.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. What they seem to be doing is trying to sort of settle nerves and fears in the oil markets
around the world. Because, you know, Saudi Arabia is an absolute key producer, and that's also part of their argument here.
When they say that -- and as they have told reporters in this press conference today, half of their capacity was taken out. That's about eight
percent of the supply to the -- of the global supply. And this is, in essence, where Saudi Arabia tries to build its case, that this is an attack
not just on Saudi Arabia, but on the global economy and on global stability.
But in essence, this press conference is designed to settle calms and fears and give a measured Saudi assessment of when they think that they can
restore that capacity. No need to panic in the meantime, they say, because they can use their strategic reserves that are placed around the world.
And perhaps that's why we're seeing these figures of 11 million barrels and 12 million barrels, capacities that they will head towards in a month or
so's time. Because currently -- or until a few days ago -- they were at 9.8 million barrels, and that, now they're going to go above that. Perhaps
the intention there is to replenish the reserves that they have, perhaps there's an intention to create bigger reserves around the world.
But this is -- this, I think, is what we're hearing, the strength of argument from the energy minister, from the new head of Aramco, there, in
this press conference in Jeddah.
GORANI: And what I find interesting is that not all countries -- Western countries are falling in line together, about who they think is
responsible. Because the French foreign minister, who's visiting Cairo today, Jean-Yves Le Drian, says we don't necessarily agree that the
location of the origin of the attack was Iran. Let's listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN-YVES LE DRIAN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): At this stage, France does not have evidence which would allow us to say that these
drones came from one place or another. And I do not know if anyone has such evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[14:05:01]
GORANI: He does not know if anyone has such evidence, interesting, Nic.
ROBERTSON: Yes, it is, isn't it. And it clearly puts the burden on Saudi Arabia and the United States, to present whatever evidence they have.
I mean, what the source familiar with the investigation has told us, that this drone that fell short, this cruise missile, this low-flying cruise
missile, relatively new type of technology, that it fell short of the target, that it was relatively undamaged, that this is what the Saudis and
the U.S. military weapons investigators are using on the ground to make the determinations of who produced it and where they believe it took off from.
What we've already heard, on the record from Saudi authorities, is that it didn't take off from Yemen and that these weapons systems were made by
Iran.
And I think, you know, a point of context here -- and this perhaps goes to what the French foreign minister was saying -- when the Saudis made similar
allegations about weapons that the Houthis were using, just about a year and a half ago, we were the first group of journalists, at CNN, to be taken
to see these Scud missile systems, or Scud-type missile systems.
And the Saudis told us, back then, that they were using the circuit boards there, that they were looking at the components to see where each of these
things were manufactured, where it was put together, who had made it. And the allegation was that it was manufactured by Iran. And the U.N. later
looked at it, and came to the same conclusion.
What the Saudis are saying now is, they're appealing for U.N. investigators to join them, for international experts to join this investigation. What
they are trying to do is build a body of international support for the evidence that they seem to believe that they have, that would make their
claims credible, that -- as they stand, that Iran was responsible, even to the point that the high supposition, if you will, the high degree of
likelihood that these weapons were fired from Iran, flew over Iraq, over Kuwait and then at their targets in Saudi Arabia.
So we see how the Saudis are trying to do this, but we haven't -- and certainly from the French foreign minister, very clear, there, even behind
the scenes -- the evidence, such as they believe they have, hasn't been made available to all their allies yet.
GORANI: All right. Nic Paton Walsh (sic) In Riyadh, thanks very much. We have a lot more on this story.
Still to come this hour, we'll be going live to Tehran in about 20 minutes. Iran's foreign minister now says the U.S. is in denial. That, another
reaction from inside of Iran, live, coming up a little bit later.
To Israel, first. In just under an hour, polls will close in a closely watched election there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing one of
the biggest battles of his political life in the country's second election in five months. Becky Anderson is in Jerusalem, and she joins us now --
Becky.
ANDERSON: Thank you very much indeed, Hala. Leading up to today's vote, the polls have had this race way too close to call. On the one hand, the
man who has dominated Israeli politics for years, Benjamin Netanyahu, who's trying to keep his right-wing Likud Party on top. And on the other, Benny
Gantz, former Israeli army chief of staff, now leader of the centrist Blue and White Party.
Of course, it is not as simple as just these two men. No matter the result, it's almost certain that anyone who wants to lead will have to
piece together a coalition, which is what brought us to this point, to this rerun. Mr. Netanyahu was unable to cobble together a government after the
last election in April.
We've got our team watching at both the major parties' headquarters, with just about 50 minutes or so before polls close. Oren Liebermann at Likud's
facility in Tel Aviv; Sam Kiley is at Blue and White HQ.
Oren, less than an hour away, as I say, from the close. How confident are Netanyahu's supporters, that he will nail it this time around, on his
terms?
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think nobody here is confident with what the results of this election will be. As you said, election polls for
the past three months, since this election was called in summer, have predicted a very tight race all along. And moreover, most of them if not
all of them have predicted the same political deadlock that led to this situation in the first place, may very well still exist.
TEXT: Likud: Right-wing, conservative party; Led by Benjamin Netanyahu; Won 35 seats in April election
LIEBERMANN: And because of that, you're seeing that lack of confidence. Nobody here is willing to make a prediction on how this will definitively
turn out. They all want to see the exit polls. But they also know that the exit polls have been wrong in the past, sometimes very wrong. So even
more than the exit polls, they want to start to see the actual results come in over the course of the evening and into the early morning hours.
Both Netanyahu and his rival, former chief of staff Benny Gantz, are taking the same strategy right now, warning their voters, we're about to lose
unless you get out there and vote. In Hebrew, it's known as a gevalt campaign, a panic campaign, to try to inspire voters by putting the fear of
losing into them. And we're seeing both of them take it at this time.
[14:10:14]
Now, Becky, it's worth pointing out, this can't actually possibly be true because the Central Elections Committee has actually said voter turnout is
up 1.5 percentage points from last April.
That being said, we don't know where it's up. And that may be one of the very important questions that decide who it is that has a reason to
celebrate tonight.
ANDERSON: That's right.
Sam, Netanyahu's critics accuse him of running a sort of Trumpian campaign, on steroids. One commentator describing him as having lied, defamed,
fabricated and provoked his way to center stage, leaving his opponents grumbling in his wake. What is the mood there, of his arch-opponent and
party?
SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Becky, at the moment, it's rather subdued. And as Orem was observing there, because of
the failure of accuracy in the past, of exit polls. For example, supporters here are being told not to bother to turn up much before 1:00 in
the morning, when results will become much more clear.
TEXT: Blue and White: Centrist, liberal party; Led by Benny Gantz; Won 35 seats in April election
KILEY: There are a few commentators around, there's a lot of media but precious few members of Mr. Gantz and Yair Lapid's party apparatus because
they are still very much in the business of trying to get those core voters out. And so they're on the stump, and trying to drive them -- almost
literally -- to the polls.
Now, but it is also the case, it is absolutely undeniable that this entire campaign has really been defined by Benjamin Netanyahu, can be accused of
being Trumpian. Perhaps Trump can be accused of being a student of Mr. Netanyahu. He has pioneered this very aggressive, very rhetorically
inflammatory, sometimes, campaigning style, which means that he can always own the argument. And then he can decide whether or not, were he to get
elected, whether or not he actually implements any of those plans.
So, for example, he has said he would annex the Jordan Valley and all of the settlements on the West Bank. Now, that is a commitment that he's made
to try to draw in the right wing, but he may not (ph) have to keep it.
ANDERSON: Oren, just remind us, what exactly is at stake at this point?
LIEBERMANN: For Netanyahu, this is about not only his political future as the longest serving leader in Israel, an accomplishment he claimed in July,
but also about his personal future. There are investigations, corruption probes looming against the prime minister.
And the attorney general, who is a Netanyahu appointee, has already said he intends to indict the prime minister on charges of bribery and breach of
trust in three separate cases. The preliminary hearing for that is two weeks away.
One of Netanyahu's strongest arguments for pushing aside these investigations, is that he's prime minister. If that's no longer the case,
first, he loses that argument. But perhaps more importantly, if he's not the prime minister, he has no way of going to the Knesset and essentially
legislating himself immunity from prosecution, which is something analysts here have said he has looked to do.
And in fact, one of the members of his Likud Party even introduced such a bill back in May, before the Knesset fell apart just a few short weeks
later.
So this is about the personal and political future of Netanyahu, and that's why this is so important. And perhaps that's part of the reason he's
making such a frenetic get-out-the-vote effort in these last few hours of campaigning, now, less than the last hour.
ANDERSON: Oren, Sam, we'll let you go. Hang on in there. As we say, less than an hour to go. We'll get those exit polls. These will not be the
actual results, of course, but we'll get a sense of sort of what is going on as far as these numbers are concerned, as these characters begin to
think about how they might build a coalition.
All right. Let's talk more about this with someone who's been there. Einat Wilf, a member -- a former member of the Knesset, joining me now.
I've spoken to people, today, who have told me simply that what is at stake in this election is Israeli democracy. Do you buy that?
EINAT WILF, FORMER MEMBER, ISRAELI KNESSET: Indeed, indeed. There is a sense that democracy's on the ballot. Israel's democracy is one of the
longest standing in the world. It's been continuous since the day it was born. But we are in an unprecedented situation. We've never had
elections, repeat elections in such a short period of time.
And the reason that democracy's on the ballot is that Netanyahu is trying to use Israel's system in order to grant immunity for himself from legal
proceedings. And he wants this immunity as long as he's prime minister, which means that he cannot sustain a loss.
[14:15:08]
And in democracy, if you cannot accept a loss as legitimate, you no longer have a democracy.
ANDERSON: The problem is this, isn't it? That whichever way you spin the Rubik's Cube on this, the questions seem to be, to Bibi or not to Bibi. So
whether you buy the argument that Israel's democracy is at stake, in the end, he still has an awful lot of support out there, doesn't he?
TEXT: Israel Election, September 17: At stake: 120 seats in the Knesset; Second vote in 5 months after deadlocked result in April; New election set
after P.M. Netanyahu failed to form coalition
WILF: Certainly. Because he does have real achievements, which we cannot discount. He has given Israel about a decade of relative peacefulness,
after years of suicide bombing, mayhem and blood in our streets. Under his leadership, violence has been at bay.
And for many Israelis, if they try to judge the question of corruption versus what Netanyahu calls life itself, the fact that they are not being
blown to bits when they go to have pizza, they say, OK, corruption charges aren't pleasant, but it's more important for us to have a leader with whom
we feel safe.
ANDERSON: What happened to the Labor Party? I mean, neither of these men and their parties can govern on their own. They have to get into a
coalition. And in the past, the Labor Party has run a coalition, has run government. What's happened to -- it was such a force in Israeli politics,
it may not even get enough votes to enter parliament this time. I mean, that -- it's been part and parcel of your life as a Labor Knesset member.
What has gone wrong?
WILF: Labor, the party, has been in a long trajectory of decline for a variety of reasons. I would say, primarily, because its main premise, that
it could make peace with the other side, failed miserably when both Arafat and Abu Massen walked away from perfectly good peace offers and followed
with violence.
But the party that carries this name right now, which is Labor, is no longer Labor in content. In many ways, you could say that Blue and White
channels what old Labor used to be. It has the labor union, it has the generals, and it is the centrist party that claims to be a governing party.
ANDERSON: Well, whichever way you look at it, it's not going to be a kingmaker in this election, likely not going to be a kingmaker. The right-
wing Nationalist Party run by Avigdor Lieberman, could easily be in that position. We certainly see the rise of right-wing nationalism around the
globe, and it does seem to be reflected in Israeli politics at this point, doesn't it? Is that important (ph)?
WILF: To a point. I mean, Israel is a country where a national identity is important. Lieberman actually has run in these elections, not on a
platform of nationalism, but one of secularism and being against the Haredi, the ultra-Orthodox parties, and this is one of the reasons he will
probably do much better than he did in the previous elections. He's also promising to have a secular unity government, which is what most Israelis
at the moment seem to want.
ANDERSON: He may be looking to roll back religion within government and society --
WILF: Yes.
ANDERSON: -- but when (ph) I talk about being sort of a nationalist leader, he's got the tendencies towards nationalism, populism, as we would
see in other places around the world.
It's a joy having you on. Thank you very much indeed for your analysis --
WILF: Thank you.
ANDERSON: -- it is incredibly important election. We've talked about what is at stake. And within about 45 minutes' times, Hala, we will be back and
we'll get the polls, which close here at 10:00 local time. We'll get you those exit polls as soon as they are out. And full special coverage of
this election in the hours to come. For now, though, back to you.
GORANI: All right, Becky. We'll see you at the top of the hour with more special coverage.
Coming up, a U.S. House committee considering impeachment is hearing from Donald Trump's former campaign manager. What he's saying and not saying
about the president and the Mueller report, some fiery moments right out of the gate. We'll bring you the latest, after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:21:31]
GORANI: Well, there were some fiery moments, as I said, right out of the gate. A U.S. congressional panel investigating President Trump is hearing
testimony right now at its first official hearing on impeachment.
Now, the House Judiciary Committee is questioning a witness, cited several times in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, a former Trump campaign
manager whose name may be familiar to you: Corey Lewandowski.
As expected, Lewandowski is combative, and he got into an argument with the committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, just literally seconds after his
testimony began.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Is it correct that, as reported in the Mueller report on June 19, 2017, you met alone in the Oval Office with the
president?
I said --
COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Is there a book and page number you can reference me to, please? I don't have a copy of the report
in front of me.
NADLER: Was it your idea for you not to answer questions based on a claim of executive privilege?
LEWANDOWSKI: I can reiterate, I didn't ask -- I've never had a conversation with someone from the White House Counsel's office regarding -
-
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: So it was not your -- so it was your idea, not to answer the question?
LEWANDOWSKI: I've never had a conversation with someone from the White House Counsel's office regarding (ph) this matter.
NADLER: Was it your idea, not to answer these questions based on executive privilege? Yes or no?
LEWANDOWSKI: Congressman, I can only go by the letter that was provided us, not my idea to provide this letter.
NADLER: It's not your idea. Did you ever suggest to the president or anyone else, that you thought your communications with him were official
White House communications?
LEWANDOWSKI: Congressman, the White House has directed not -- I not disclose the substance of any discussions with the president or his
advisors, to protect executive branch --
NADLER: Let me ask you --
LEWANDOWSKI: -- confidentiality. And I recognize this is not my privilege, but I am respecting the White House's decision.
NADLER: This is clearly just part of the president's continued attempt to cover up his actions. He is obstructing our congressional investigation by
preventing you from telling the American people the truth about his misconduct. He will not succeed, and we will not be deterred.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Well, Sara Murray joins me now, live from Washington with more.
So tell us more about Corey Lewandowski. Because he was also questioned by Republican congressmen and women, just in the last hour. His demeanor was
quite different, depending on who was asking him questions -- Sara.
SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. You know, he's certainly been very defiant when it comes to the Democrats' questioning.
He is much more collegial when Republicans are asking him questions.
And, you know, in part because a lot of the Republicans we've heard from on this committee are spending their time, you know, railing against the
Russia investigation, asking him how long he's spent testifying already, essentially applauding him for being willing to show up in front of
Congress again, and reiterating, you know, that there was no collusion, that there was essentially nothing here and this is all just about trying
to get to the president and harass the people around him.
So you're sort of seeing the two sides of Corey Lewandowski, and certainly two sides that are not unfamiliar to anyone who dealt with him on the Trump
campaign. I mean, he is a true Trump loyalist. He's behaving in a way that is undoubtedly pleasurable to the president. We've already seen
President Trump tweeting about what a great job Corey Lewandowski is doing.
So in some ways, it's not surprising. Although I do think it is a little bit jaw-dropping to watch from home, the various ways that he's, you know,
stonewalling this committee by asking for a copy of the report, by refusing to even answer questions that tie directly to the Mueller report, which is
something that even the White House says he's allowed to talk about.
So we're still very much in the thick of it. But right now, I imagine Democrats on this committee are probably pretty frustrated by the fact that
they can't even get him to address some of the instances that are covered in the Mueller report.
[14:25:05]
The one thing that he did say, is that he does not believe that he was asked to do anything illegal on President Trump's behalf. And as you could
imagine, that raised the ire of Democrats who say that he was party to obstruction of justice.
GORANI: But how can he claim executive privilege? He's never worked in the executive branch, he's never worked in the White House. How does that
work?
MURRAY: This is a fight. And he is essentially saying, this isn't my privilege to claim, and I know that, but I've been instructed by the White
House to only talk about instances that were covered in the Mueller report, and to not discuss my private conversations with the president.
And, you know, we're seeing, as this plays out, that there's not a lot that Democrats on the committee can do to force him to talk about this, except
to chastise him in public. And, of course, to make the case that we've seen from Democrats, that this is essentially a cover-up from the White
House.
You know, remember, Corey Lewandowski is not the only person who was called to be at this hearing today. There were two other White House aides, Rick
Dearborn and Rob Porter, that the committee wanted to hear from, and the White House forbade either of them from showing up and testifying. So the
only person there is Lewandowski who, as you noted, is not someone who ever even worked in the Trump administration.
GORANI: All right. Sara Murray, thanks so much.
We will continue to monitor today's hearings and we'll bring you an update later this hour, just on the strategy side of things, what Democrats --
could they not have expected Corey Lewandowski not to be cooperative? What does it mean for them? Stephen Collinson joins us in about 15 minutes for
that.
First, though, as accusations fly in the wake of this weekend's attack on Saudi oilfields, we're live in Tehran as we hear the Iranian side of the
story.
Plus, the showdown over Brexit goes to the U.K. supreme court. What the anti-Brexiteers are arguing to end Parliament's shutdown.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GORANI: More, now, on our top story. The aftermath of the attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities. The kingdom's energy minister has been
holding a news conference. He calls the attack on the Saudi oilfields an attack on all countries. He's pledging to ramp up production as fast as
possible.
And, meanwhile, we're getting new details in the investigation. A source familiar with the U.S. and Saudi probes tells CNN there's a, quote, "high
probability," unquote, that the strikes were launched from an Iranian base, though the U.S. and the Saudis still haven't released evidence of that.
All this as the U.S. vice president echoes his Boss, Donald Trump, in how the U.S. might respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And in the wake of this weekend's unprovoked attack on several oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, I
promise you, we're ready.
[14:30:00]
As the president said, we don't want war with anybody, but the United States is prepared. We're locked and loaded, and we're ready to defend our
interests and allies in the region. Make no mistake about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Iran is denying the accusations. Now Iran's foreign minister is slamming the U.S. in some new tweets.
Nick Paton Walsh joins me from Teheran with more on the latest of the reactions. Nick?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hala, as you've been saying, obviously, U.S. and Saudi officials are pointing towards Iran.
Sometime the great certainty of the times with anonymous briefings or degree of caveat.
But Iran has consistently said from the beginning they have nothing to do with this. And I've been saying that they agreed with the Yemeni Houthi
rebels who initially claimed responsibility for this attack, they say launching 10 drones which crossed hundreds of miles of Saudi airspace and
hit through tens of billions of dollars defenses these oil refineries.
Now, Iran officials have said that actually they believe the Houthis have that capability, that's something other analysts have poured doubt upon.
But Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, has said on Twitter today, "The U.S. is in denial. If it thinks that Yemeni victims of 4.5 years of
the worst war crimes wouldn't do all to strike back."
He goes on to say, "Perhaps it's embarrassed. The U.S. has embarrassed. That hundreds of billions of dollars of arms didn't intercept Yemeni fire.
But blaming Iran won't change that."
A bit their clearly, just poor attention and focus upon the ongoing was in Yemen where a Saudi aerial bombardment has caused the humanitarian crisis.
Taking dozens of civilian lives, hundreds of billion lives. A lot of that is done with U.S. military assistance. And a lot of U.S. arms, too.
He goes on to say, "The U.S. isn't upset when its allies mercilessly bombing capitals, babies, in Yemen over four years with its arms and its
military assistance. But it is terribly upset when the victims react the only way they can against the aggressor's oil refineries."
Ending the war equals the only solution for all that. There had been multiple attempts to end that way. It's dragged on interminably. But this
is obviously Iran sticking to its position. This was the Yemeni rebels, that they think is embarrassing to Saudi Arabia.
Clearly, they believe they have the capability for that. It flies in the face of what U.S. and Saudi officials are saying, but it's Iran's line up
at this point and they continue to say they have nothing to do with this attack. Hala?
GORANI: Right. And we've heard from Iranian leaders, the supreme leader as well saying (INAUDIBLE) until sanctions are lifted or certainly under
the current conditions.
What could lead to some sort of breakthrough and get the two sides to talk to each other with all this increased tension in the region?
PATON WALSH: Well, the problem at this point is that I don't think the Iranians grasp exactly what the U.S. policy is towards them, because it
doesn't seem like the Americans actually know themselves with great clarity.
Now, today, we had a very stark statement from the most authoritative voice in Iran, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who said there will be no
talks with the United States on any level. He talks about how sometimes -- I'll paraphrase it. Sometimes, they have no preconditions, sometimes they
have 12. They seemed to be ruled by political turbulence. But he said Iran is clear and unanimously isn't going to talk.
He held out a slim possibility that if, frankly, humiliatingly for Donald Trump, America withdrew its statements, apologized, and got back into the
nuclear deal, then maybe they could join multilateral talks with others signatories to that deal. He didn't say, in his long speech, that if
sanctions will change or dropped entirely, that that might not change Iran's mind.
But I have to say that's something that the U.S. has been wrestling with publicly. Are they going to make some kind of relief of sanctions to tempt
Iran to the table?
Iran said in that speech through the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, as well, that they believe maximum pressure is a trick designed to get them to the
table.
So, frankly, the message at this time of crisis from Iran is, we are not interested in talking, we don't trust you, and that, I think, will make
many in the region think of the diplomatic off-ramp. They may have been wondering might have been available isn't for now. Hala.
GORANI: All right. Nick Paton Walsh live in Tehran.
I'm joined by Robin Wright. She's a contributing writer for the New Yorker, and she joins me now live.
Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state is headed to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. What does the U.S. want to achieve here in the next few days?
ROBIN WRIGHT, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: It wants to send a signal that it supports Saudi Arabia. It wants to take a firm stand and
saying, whoever was responsible for this, you're messing with us as well as the kingdom.
And I think he's trying to figure out, as the U.S. defense establishment is, exactly what happened to help figure out what the United States does
and response. Does it launch some kind of military retaliation? Whether it's against an Iranian proxy, an Iranian military installation? Does it
unleash a cyberattack as it apparently did after the Iranians shot down a drone, a U.S. drone in June?
[14:35:00]
What kind of action does it take to show the world that this kind of challenge to one of his closest allies is unacceptable?
Iran, what is it? It's aimed here. It is really suffering because of these sanctions, economically, now. But it's also taking advantage of the
fact that the U.S. is very reluctant to engage militarily at this stage.
WRIGHT: Well, the fascinating thing about the timing of this attack is that the -- we were on oppress of this, either you move -- either with two
countries who have not spoken to each other at the presidential level for 40 years or close to an enjoyment brokered by the French or we're now
looking at what could be some kind of kinetic operation that could raise tensions across the Middle East, not just between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
But again, between all of Iran and its allies and all of the United States and its allies.
GORANI: And speaking of the United States allies, the French foreign minister was in Cairo today. He said he can't be sure that the attack came
from inside Iran, that France doesn't have the evidence and he doesn't think anyone has evidence that can determine with any -- unequivocally that
this came from inside Iran.
What do you make of the fact that there's daylight between the U.S. and an important ally like France here?
WRIGHT: And I suspect on others as well, look, the United States has a credibility problem. And the after math of its intervention in Iraq in
2003, when we claimed that there are weapons of mass destruction and there weren't.
So I think the entire world is looking for more than a group of satellite photos to show that there was indeed damage. They want to know exactly the
launch sites and trajectories, who is responsible. I think there may be a consensus that Iranian weaponry was involved whether it was by -- fired by
proxies or Iran.
But if Iran did this directly from its territory, this would amount to an extraordinary escalation. Because Iran's activities in the past and
challenging the region, challenging the United States have always been through proxies and allowed plausible deniability.
GORANI: Right. In your reporting, you've reported over the last few weeks that there have been efforts on the U.S. side for some sort of -- for some
meetings to take place.
The U.S. president on Air Force One said maybe probably not next week. It's the United Nation General Assembly, but isn't closing the door to
talks. What would it take to get the two sides to talk to each other?
WRIGHT: Well, it'll take concessions by both sides, and I think that's what President Macron, France, has been trying to do over the last few
months. Very quietly, not just at the G7 when he talked directly to Trump and also hosted the Iranian foreign minister.
But for months, has been trying to figure out a way that Iran would freeze its nuclear program. It's been gradually taking steps away from the 2015
nuclear deal, and getting the United States to offer some waives on sanctions that would be an incentive for Iran.
In other words, it wouldn't be a new big deal, but it would be the beginning of contact that might lead to a new bigger deal.
Robyn Wright, thanks so much. Always a pleasure.
WRIGHT: Thank you, Hala.
GORANI: We can get back to Saudi Arabia briefly. We're joined now by John Defterios, he's been at that news conference in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Talk
to us about when the Saudi say they'll be back to a capacity at that oil field that was attacked.
JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN BUSINESS EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR: Well, Hala, they're pretty confident here that by the end of September, they're going to have
their capacity to 11 million barrels a day, that's not the production, but at full capacity at 11.
And by the end of November taking that up to 12 million barrels a day. The royal highness, Abdulaziz bin Salman, who is now the minister of energy and
the CEO of Aramco, (INAUDIBLE) there also the chairman of PIF, who's the chairman of Aramco, expressing confidence that they had to deal with 15
fires, simultaneous fires at the processing facility and also that gigantic field as well.
But they're suggesting now, they're at 50 percent within the next 24 to 48 hours to 70 percent. And by the end of the month here, they could be at
100 percent capacity with the production of 9.8 billion barrels a day. That's what we saw oil prices started to weaken.
But to actually hear it not from a briefing or a background, that is yet, Hala. But from the horse's mouth, if you will, at this press conference
(INAUDIBLE).
It's a huge difference on why the market is sold off. They have the supplies right now, the storage, they can use it. But by the end of the
month, they won't need to do that anymore. They'll be at full capacity as they say. Which also raises the point they don't have to go to the
strategic petroleum reserve from the United States as well, Hala.
GORANI: All right. John Defterios in Jeddah. Apologies there for the audio quality there. It was a bit echoey, but we got the gist of it. The
Saudis working as fast as they can to get their production back up to full capacity for the attack.
[14:40:01]
Up next, tonight, the shutdown showdown here in the U.K.'s highest court. It's another unprecedented move in the Brexit debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GORANI: Get ready, because we're about to use the "u" word in relation to Brexit again. There is an unprecedented courtroom showdown happening in
this country this week.
And Boris Johnson's political future could be at stake. It's about his decision to suspend parliament. He says it's perfectly legal. And prime
ministers do it all the time. His opponent say his motivation was selfish and political and, therefore, illegal.
Hearing those arguments now as the U.K. Supreme Court is made up of the sharpest political minds in this land, and the president, Lady Hale, made
clear that they are not getting sucked into politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LADY HALE, PRESIDENT, U.K. SUPREME COURT: We are not concerned with the wider political issues which formed the context for this legal issue. As
will be apparent when we hear the legal arguments, the determination of this legal issue will not determine when and how the United Kingdom leaves
the European Union.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: No problems say the lawyers arguing against Boris Johnson's government. The court doesn't have to get political. This is all legal
according to them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID PANNICK, PLAINTIFF GINA MILLER'S LAWYER: In my submission, the courts should arrived at a conclusion that if we are otherwise correct in
our submissions, that this issue is not justiciable, only if the court were to be driven to do so. It is a legal question that we are raising and
legal questions up for the courts to determine.
The remedy we seek is a declaration and we only seek a declaration that the advice to her majesty was unlawful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: So just the declaration sounds simple enough. But the bottom line, Boris Johnson's opponent want this court to say the prime minister
acted illegally in his conversation with the queen.
Joining me now to break it all down is Robert Craig, a researcher of law at Bristol University. You were in court today.
ROBERT CRAIG, RESEARCHER OF LAW, BRISTOL UNIVERSITY: I got up at 7:30 in the morning to sit outside the court.
GORANI: So we didn't have to. Thank you very much.
OK. So does -- who has the best case here?
CRAIG: Well, this case started in Scotland. And the first instant a judge in Scotland found for the government. And it didn't really get much
coverage because everyone was like, OK.
And then the high court in England, England and Wales, they have the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, and President of the Queen's bench
Division, which is the three most senior judges outside the Supreme Court.
GORANI: Sure.
CRAIG: And they decided the same way. OK. Then the Scottish appeal courts, 3-0 went the other way, and suddenly, everyone paid attention.
GORANI: And said it's illegal for Boris Johnson to suspend parliament in the way he did. That's what the appeals court --
CRAIG: That is unlawful. But yes.
GORANI: Unlawful. Now, what is the expectation with this here? Because we'll get the -- what? We'll get the ruling on Thursday?
[14:45:01]
CRAIG: No. Thursday is the last day of the hearing. This is time critical. So if they -- what they do at the end of a hearing is they go
into one of their offices in the back and they'll do it in rank order by the junior first. They get five minutes each to say what they all think as
initial reaction.
GORANI: OK.
CRAIG: If it's like 11-0, then they'll probably announcing pretty quickly. If it is 8-3 and people are waddling, they're going to have to wait until
next week. And their rumors of Monday and this on the other.
Now, one of the courts, one of the junior -- one of the lower courts gave the result and then gave the reasons later. So we might see that, we might
see them announce the outcome. And then the reasons they can come later on.
The reason they might do that, because this is time critical. Because every day that goes by, this becomes more of an academic question, because
they're coming back on the 14th of October anyway.
GORANI: Now, those who are arguing that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully, what point are they making? What legal argument are they making?
CRAIG: Two stages the augment --
GORANI: In simple terms.
CRAIG: Yes, I'm going to -- that's what I'm here for. There's two stages to it. The first stage is that there's a really clear rule of the English
high courts, set out very clearly, a red light. If the issues raised are really what are called high-level policy matters, they are not justiciable
(ph), which just means they're not something the courts can look at.
GORANI: Right.
CRAIG: If you get passed that, the next question separation is, is the way you did it, in some way, problematic? So in this case, they're arguing
that it wasn't -- it was called an improper purpose.
OK. So I might do something that looks lawful, but if the reasons I did it for some ancillary weird or improper reason, they can strike you down as
unlawful.
GORANI: So if I can just show our viewers. So they're arguing that the decision to suspend parliament for more days than you would normally
suspend parliament was a way for Boris Johnson to avoid oversight of his Brexit policy.
CRAIG: Exactly. And that would be an improper purpose according to that - - according to the lawyers that if you're trying to dodge parliament, it was kind of what they're saying.
GORANI: So the court needs to rule whether or not what Boris Johnson's government did was unlawful, because they were using this purgation of
parliament to avoid being held to account on their Brexit policy.
CRAIG: Right. But this is a really broad reading of the central principle of U.K. constitutional law, which is called parliamentary sovereignty,
which means, very simply, that whatever parliament passes and the act upon, and as a statute, is binding.
Pannick trying to expand that, because he's trying to say not just when it's an act of parliament, it's actually, also, if you want to scrutinize
or do other things, parliament must be allowed to do that and to pass other act, which have not been passed yet. But just because they might wanted to
pass it, we shouldn't stop them from doing so. That's an expansion of their basic principles.
GORANI: So what is your expectation here? Who has the stronger argument? And if Boris Johnson's side loses, does he have to reconvene parliament
right away?
CRAIG: I'm personally more persuaded by the judgment of the English court. I think that's -- orthodoxy, and I think the expansion is being argued for
by Lord Pannick is problematic. But I will say, mutually, the vast majority of academic opinion supports his lawyers. So I'm in a minority on
that one.
On the second issue, it gets extremely complicated. So I'm going to try and keep it very simple. But what remedy you're trying to give to Ms.
Miller? If you are trying to say you're going to have a declaration that's unlawful, that means that, effectively, as it never happened, because it's
void.
Which means the next stage in the process which is the queen issuing an Order in Counsel was done without any professional -- without ministerial
advice.
And the third stage which is the actual procedure inside parliament, which actually leads to parliament being pro-road or suspended, was also
unlawful. But that's the problem. Because Article Nine, the bill of rights 1689, probably the most important single statute of provision in the
entire English and Wales system says, any proceedings in parliament cannot be questioned in court.
But if you're going to say that it was unlawful for them to forward parliament in a proceedings in parliament, in my opinion, that contradicts
that basic principle. And if that's a problem, so that affect the Order in Counsel, and maybe even protects the actual advice in the first place from
even being looked at by the court, and that's the dilemma the court has.
Because they have to get passed all these hurdles before they can even consider, whether or not, it was an improper purpose.
GORANI: Well, there's going to be a lot to get through for this court.
Robert Craig, thanks so much. Hopefully we'll have you on again once we have a ruling. Thank you, appreciate it.
Still to come. Some fiery exchanges, as the U.S. House Committee hears from Donald Trump's former campaign manager. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:50:04]
GORANI: We're keeping an eye on the first impeachment hearing by the U.S. Congressional Panel. House Democrats are trying to question former Trump
campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. And I'm saying trying, because he's refused to answer a number of questions.
Lewandowski was heavily referenced in former special counsel, Robert Mueller's report.
White House reporter, Stephen Collison, joins us from Washington.
Lewandowski said the White House ordered him not to answer any question that go beyond what he already told Robert Mueller, the special counsel.
But how can he claim that he has this kind of privilege when he never worked in the White House?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Hala, he can. There's no legal judgment that says that executive privilege, which is a custom
that allows a president to get advice from his senior advisors without the possibility of ever coming out in an open hearing or something like that.
There's no legal case that says that Lewandowski has this privilege. What's going on here is this hearing is fast becoming an iconic
illustration of how Donald Trump and his cohorts have made really a fast out of the machinery of government. The checks and balances system by
introducing this reality show style obstruction with the willing help of republicans in the committee who have basically abdicated any
responsibility, constitutional responsibility to hold the executive, the presidency to account here.
So this is a really interesting hearing. It's full of fireworks, but it has a deeper meaning and that is that it shows us how difficult it has been
for Democrats to follow through on their vow and they won the House in the midterm elections to hold the president to account.
Susan Glasser who covers politics for the New Yorker tweeted, I'm struggling to understand what democrats thought would happen when they
called Corey Lewandowski to testify on Trump?
What's the strategy here? Because it was -- anybody who knows Lewandowski, knows this was entirely predictable.
COLLISON: Exactly. Lewandowski is the most Trumpian Trump acolytes of all. He was right there at the beginning with the president. If you
listen to his testimony, it's clear that he is basically aiming for an audience of one. The president who's already tweeted his satisfaction
about how Lewandowski is performing. He was watching it a few moments ago when Air Force One, as he was flying across California.
Another interesting wrinkle here is that Corey Lewandowski is thinking of running for the Senate in New Hampshire in the elections next year. Trump
has already given him approval and Trump, of course, would be a very powerful advocate for Lewandowski in a Republican primary.
So it's pretty transparent of what's going on here. Lewandowski basically has an audience of one and he's being a willing accomplice to the
president's effort to stall and to basically stop Democrats, you know, in their oversight operation of his White House.
GORANI: All right, Stephen Collison. Thanks very much.
Thanks for watching tonight. Stay with CNN. Our special coverage of Israel's election begins right after a short break.
Becky Anderson is in Jerusalem and the very first exit polls are coming out and all the right voices will explain what they mean. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:55:20]
ANDERSON: Tonight, a new dawn for Israeli politics or more of the same deadlock.
A very good evening from Jerusalem. This is CNN's special coverage of the Israeli election. I'm Becky Anderson. And in a couple of minutes from
now, voting will close and within seconds, we will see the first exit polls.
It's the country's second national election in five months. On a night like this back in April, both Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz claimed
victory. In the end, Netanyahu was narrowly ahead, but he was unable to form a government.
Well, the results may hinge on turn out throughout the day. Israelis have been voting in greater numbers that in April make no doubt about it. This
election, right now, is way too close to call.
Well, this is seen by many as a referendum on one man, Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party. The face of Israel for more than a decade. He saw
himself as Mr. Security and boasted about his tight relationship with U.S. president, Donald Trump.
True to form, Netanyahu has made a sharp push to the right. Now, promising to annex parts of the West Bank if he wins.
Well, hanging over everything is a corruption probe. In the coming weeks, Israel's attorney general plans to indict Netanyahu on charges of bribery
and breach of trust.
Well, the strongest rival is Benny Gantz, from the Blue and White Party. Gantz is a career soldier whom led the Israel defense forces through two
wars in Gaza.
His politics are centrist. But with his military background, he's tried to snatch that Mr. Security title away for himself.
Blue and White's main talking point is that reelecting Benjamin Netanyahu poses a threat to Israel's democracy.
Well, neither candidate expects to get an outright majority. This is how the Israeli parliament, the Knesset stands now, 120 seats are up for grabs.
The magic number of seats is 61. This is what any coalition is looking for in order to secure a working majority. And that means the results of the
smaller parties will be crucial. And all parties must clear a threshold of 3.25 percent of the vote to secure seats in the Knesset.
And a reminder, the only reason we are having this rerun election is that former defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, confounded everyone, including
Mr. Netanyahu by refusing to get into a coalition within even after the maximum six weeks of negotiation.
END
