Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Pressed Ukrainian President To Investigate Biden's Son; New York Judge Orders Trump To Testify In 2015 Case; Patriots Cut Antonio Brown Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations; Prince Andrew Accuser Says She Was Forced To Perform Sex Acts; N.Y. Teen Charged With Murder In Fatal Stabbing Of Student; Wal-Mart, Sam's Club To Stop Selling E-Cigarettes; Police Arrest Man Who Drove SUV Into Chicago- Area Mall. Aired 7-8a ET

Aired September 21, 2019 - 07:00   ET



[07:00:00] ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY WEEKEND, with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Top of the hour. Good morning to you. Top stories this morning. Joe Biden says President Trump is guilty of abusing the power of his office if reports are true that he repeated asked the Ukrainian president to investigate his son, Hunter.

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: In the meantime, a woman who says she was sexually abused by Britain's Prince Andrew when she was teenager says she was introduced to the prince by convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.

BLACKWELL: And Antonio Brown no longer a New England Patriot amid new allegations of intimidations and harassment.

PAUL: 7:00 on the dock, we want to begin with the former Vice President Joe Biden accusing President Trump of abuse of power for reportedly calling Ukraine's president and asking him multiple times to investigate Biden's son, Hunter, in an attempt -- as it is being called -- to undermine his chief political rival.

BLACKWELL: Well, that phone call is at the center of a heated fight between House Democrats and the acting director of National Intelligence.

PAUL: What was discussed during that conversation depends on who you ask. CNN National Correspondent, Alex Marquardt has more.


ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What should have been a routine call between world leaders was any but. On a July 25th call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Trump pressed President Zelensky to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on digging up dirt on Joe Biden's son.

The White House said, the two presidents discussed strengthening the relationship without giving specifics. But Ukraine said they talked about the investigation of corruption cases which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA. In May, the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said he was going to Ukraine to push the new president to investigate Joe Biden and his son's links to a gas company.

He canceled the trip, but then in July went to Madrid to meet with an aide to President Zelensky to talk about Biden. Biden's son, Hunter, had served on a board of a Ukrainian gas company which Ukraine's prosecutor general was supposed to be looking into. But in 2016, Joe Biden, as Vice President, played a prominent role in getting the prosecutor fired because he had been ignoring corruption.

Biden joining other countries and groups in the widespread push to get Ukraine to clean up its act. Fast forward to 2019, President Trump and his lawyer and many supporters pounced accusing Biden of helping out his son. Now, there are questions about whether that push by Trump and Giuliani is tied to the late August move by the White House to put a hole on $250 million in military aide for Ukraine, which was later released.

On September 1st, Vice President Mike Pence met with Zelensky. When asked about the efforts to get dirt on Joe Biden, the Vice President danced around it.

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As President Trump had me made clear, we have grave concerns about issues of corruption.

MARQUARDT: Whatever the alleged promise that the whistleblower says the president reportedly made, Democrats in Congress are vowing to get to the bottom of those claims.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): They deserve a thorough investigations; that's what we're intent on doing and come hell or high water, that's what we're going to do.

MARQUARDT: Chairman Adam Schiff also heads up one of three committees that was already investigating that call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Now, we know that call is part of the whistleblower complaint as well which Schiff says has a real sense of urgency. He's exploring what he can do in terms of legal options in court if they aren't given access to the complaint. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who blocked the complaint from Congress; he's due to testify in front of Schiff's House Intelligence Committee next Thursday. Alex Marquardt, CNN, Washington.


PAUL: Alex, thank you. So, if the reports are true, Vice President Joe Biden says: "There is truly no bottom to the President Trump's willingness to abuse his power and (INAUDIBLE) our country." Are the Democratic front runner also pushed back on President Trump's claims that he and his son had inappropriate dealings with Ukrainian government while Biden was vice president. Take a listen.


JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Wait a second, wait a second, wait a second. Not one single credible outlet has given any credibility to his assertion. Not one, single one. And so, I have no comment, except the president start to be president.


BLACKWELL: Other Democratic presidential candidates are also weighing in, excuse me, on the controversy. Senator Kamala Harris is urging the unnamed whistleblower to go directly to Congress with their concerns.

PAUL: OK. We were supposed to have some sound there. We will have that for you. But former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is weighing in as well. She tweeted this: "The president asked a foreign power to help him win an election again.

[07:05:06] BLACKWELL: Let's bring in Anita Kumar, White House Correspondent for Politico.

Anita, good morning to you.


BLACKWELL: OK. So, let's just be very clear here. The president can clear this up. We watched the president ask Russia to find the Clinton's e-mails. He said it was a joke, but we learned through the Mueller investigation that Russian spies started that day to try to hack Clinton's server. And then, there was this in June with ABC News, let's watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your campaign this time -- foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should call the FBI?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I know there's nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway -- we have information on your opponent. oh, I think I'd want to hear that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want that kind of interference in our elections?

TRUMP: It's not interference. They have information. I think I'd take it.


BLACKWELL: And this reported accusation is far more proactive than that. Instead of I didn't ask President Zelensky to investigate Biden; he says, it doesn't matter what I said. The White House can clear this up? KUMAR: They can clear this up. They can put out information. As

former Vice President Joe Biden said, they could put out a transcript of the call, but the president is already using it to fire up his base, right? He's looking back at how he handled the Russian investigation and he's pretty much doing the same thing.

He's called it something that the deep state, the Democrats, the media are all using to try to take him down. It's the thing we've seen from him for the last 2-1/2 years, and with his supporter, it's very much working. So, he doesn't want that information out. You've seen his administration say they're not putting it out or giving it to Congress, but, yes, you're absolutely right, he could put out more information to let the public decide.

BLACKWELL: Yes, and what we heard from the president from in the oval office yesterday with -- that this is a partisan. And then a few minutes later, I don't know who the whistleblower is. You would expect that the inspector general would have, before determining this complaint credible figured out if this was simply based on partisan politics, right?

KUMAR: Right. I mean the inspector generals of different agencies are supposed to just look at the facts they have, right? They aren't partisan. They are independent from that.

But the chain of command is that the inspector general can go to the director of National Intelligence. That is a person that can stop what -- stop this information from going forward to Congress. That's why Democrats are skeptical of this because the administration isn't passing on this information.

They're probably going to end up in court over this. It's not the first time. They have lots of other things they're in court over that the House Democrats are looking for. So, because the administration isn't turning it over, there is some skepticism there. There are some people saying, what are they trying to hide here.

BLACKWELL: Yes, and speaking of Democrats in the last day, presidential candidates, Julian Castro, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker have referenced this reporting, especially the reporting from the Wall Street Journal" in renewing calls for the president to be impeached. How does align, though, with what is already a pretty muddled impeachment message or messaging from House Democrats? I mean, could this be seen as just a desperate now let's move the case to this new thing?

KUMAR: Well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has resisted impeachment as you know. She's says the investigation just need to continue. But the pressure is going to be on her to open up another avenue here of possible impeachment, investigation into impeachment.

The pressure is already on her; she has needs to investigate. You know, we're sort of seeing the same patterns. Everyone is seeing in this what they want. We don't have all the information, but you've seen Republicans on capitol hill saying exactly what the president is saying, that this is a partisan hack job, that it's exactly like the Mueller report, they don't see anything there, and you're seeing Democrats say, it's possible bribery, it's possible abuse of power, and it could be something the president needs to be impeached over.

We're really in the same place we've been. The Democrats want to impeach, or at least a lot of them do. Republicans don't. So, that means there's not going to be the votes for it. But the pressure will be on and you can bet the House Democrats will really investigate this and see where it takes them.

BLACKWELL: Already right. We'll see if they get any disclosure from the White House. The White House has stalled them on so many or stonewalled, I should say, on so many elements. Anita Kumar, thank you so much.

KUMAR: Sure. Thank you.

PAUL: Well, apparently, the New England Patriots have had enough. After 11 days, the teammates have decided to show Antonio Brown he door. The newest allegations against the troubled NFL Star that led to his release.

BLACKWELL: Plus, President Trump under oath. A judge in New York says president must testify as to his private security team. Why this lawsuit could have wide-ranging consequences.

[07:10:12] PAUL: And students walked out of their classrooms in more than 100 countries to protest climate action. They say their governments have failed future generations. We'll have more.


BLACKWELL: After just 11 days with the team, Wide Receiver Antonio Brown has been cut by the New England Patriots. And the statement of the team said: it was best to move on in a different direction at this time.

PAUL: Now, Brown is at the center of scandals on and off the field, remember? It includes allegations of rape and harassment. CNN's Sports Analyst Christine Brennan with us also with Sports Columnist by the way, for USA Today, we want to point out. Good morning to you, Christine. We're so glad to have you here.


PAUL: Thank you. I think a lot of people are wondering where does he go from here? Does he have a future in the NFL?

BRENNAN: Certainly, not in the short term. At least I hope not. And I think many of us would probably agree when you've been credibly charged or the allegations are by two women, Christi, over the last basically last ten days that we've found out about who are alleged sexual misconduct, sexual assault, rape even in one case, so what does he do?

What's his future? The NFL issued a very interesting statement late last night basically saying that they're still investigating and that it could become appropriate to put him on the commissioner's exempt list if another team signs him. So, that would mean that a team would sign him on then, have to pay him but not be able to use him.

I think the NFL, kind of, sent out the word. It is probably best right now not to be anywhere near him, and one would hope that sports fans and the teams and coaches alike would say: you know, we're part of a community here. It's bigger than just football -- he's a great, great, wide receiver, don't get me wrong, but in terms of the community, in terms that the message your sending especially to women and girls, it's probably a good idea that Antonio Brown not be on the football field for quite some time.

[07:15:11] BLACKWELL: You know, Christine, we were having this conversation about this time last weekend but the question was: would he play in the game against the Dolphins in Miami? We heard from a lot of NFL fans -- maybe not Antonio Brown fans -- that he hadn't been charged, these are just allegations.

He's now been cut by the team, and if he goes back into the league, he'll potentially be put on the exempt list. Has this created a new threshold for the NFL, for better or worse, that even without an investigation by police without a police report that, that you can be dropped from the team, dropped from the league?

BRENNAN: Victor, yes, it probably has. Although it's important to note that last year, Kareem Hunt had actually not been charged in any criminal way. He was also put on the commissioner's exempt list. What that was, was there was a video. It's not always about a criminal charge.

Now, in the case of Antonio Brown, what has also developed this week, as I'm sure have followed this, is that the second woman, an artist, who was in his home painting a mural in 2017 and alleged that he exposed himself to her. She actually then, according to her and also Sports Illustrated, she was the subject of harassing, threatening, text messages from Antonio Brown on a group text chat chain earlier this week.

So, if that's true and S.I. (Sports Illustrated) was able to corroborate that it was Antonio Brown's phone that was sending those, then that's a horrible turn. And again, it's not so much having -- it's not a court of law, obviously, but it's about the workplace, and the NFL can adjudicate itself.

It can look into things. And when it's sitting there in plain sight and all of us in our workplace as would probably be said (INAUDIBLE) sent me packing or at the very least, be put on some kind of a paid leave, that's commonplace in the American workplaces. And so, the NFL is an unusual workplace, nonetheless, I think we're seeing this, and I think it's a very good move, by the way, considering #MeToo and considering Roy Rice from five years ago and all the things the NFL has been dealing with over the last few years.

PAUL: Not just the NFL, but the Patriots. I mean -- I know they want to be seen as no-nonsense by all accounts but you've their background, you've got Aaron Hernandez, who was convicted of murder; you've got their owner, Robert Kraft, who was caught up in that sex saga in Florida. I mean, is there more to this for the Patriots?

BRENNAN: Patriots like to take flyers as you pointed out sometimes on players who made the other teams wouldn't try and they've had great success with that. This one was a failure. And let's just say what it was; it was just a mistake. You have this potentially pending lawsuit, a civil suit, Britney Taylor, a woman who attached her name to this, went public with it, and three different allegations, all of them troubling, including rape in this lawsuit. So, the Patriots, yes, they did it.

They did it the patriot way, and it lasted 11 days, and he's gone. And maybe that will be -- Christi and Victor, maybe that will be a bit of a cautionary tale for other teams here. This does not, by the way, to say that people shouldn't be able to work if there are potential allegations against them, but these allegations are incredibly troubling and at a time when our country cares about listening to women.

The NFL said it cares about women and girls too. 45 percent of their fan base is female. Well, this is a good example of how to start doing that. And that's all this was. I don't think it's necessarily a precedent setter, but Antonio Brown has done a lot of unusual and ridiculous things over the past few months, and, of course, this became very serious very quickly.

BLACKWELL: All right. We'll see what happens next for Antonio Brown. Christine Brennan, thank you so much.

PAUL: Thanks, Christine.

BRENNAN: Thank you very much.

PAUL: So, police in New York want to talk to dozens of teenagers who recorded a deadly stabbing, and then they posted the video on social media. What we learn now about the teenager who is charged with murder.

[07:19:19] BLACKWELL: Plus, we're hearing from the woman who says she was sexually abused as a teenager by Britain's Prince Andrew. How Virginia Roberts Giuffre says that she was introduced to the British royal by convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.


PAUL: Twenty-three minutes past the hour right now. We're glad to have you here. This morning one of Jeffrey Epstein's many accusers has revealed new details about her alleged sexual abuse by Britain's Prince Andrew.

BLACKWELL: Virginia Roberts Giuffre says she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 16 years old. Now, court document show that Giuffre accused Epstein of keeping her as a teenage sex slave. Epstein died by suicide in jail in August awaiting trial on charges that he abused underaged girls. Last night, Giuffre shared her claims about Prince Andrew.


VIRGINIA ROBERTS GIUFFRE, ACCUSER: He was an abuser, he was a participant. That first time in London I was so young, Ghislaine woke me up in the morning and said, you're going to meet a prince today. I didn't know at that point that I was going to be trafficked to that prince.

And then that night Prince Andrew came to her house in London and we went out to club tramp. Prince Andrew got me alcohol. It was in the VIP section. I'm pretty sure it was vodka. Prince Andrew was like, let's dance together and I was like OK.

And we leave club tramp and I hop in the car with Ghislaine and Jeffrey and Ghislaine said he's coming back to the house, and I want you to do for him what you do for Epstein. I couldn't believe it. He wasn't rude or anything about it. He said, you know, thank you and some kind of soft sentiments like that and left.

I just couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe that even royalties were involved. He denies that it ever happened and he's going to keep denying that it ever happened, but he knows the truth and I know the truth.


[07:25:09] BLACKWELL: Buckingham Palace previously released a statement on the accusations against the prince. It reads, it is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.

PAUL: Topping this morning's legal brief, the Washington Post is reporting a New York judge has ordered President Trump to testify now in a case involving a fight between his security guards and protesters back in 2015. Now, according to this lawsuit, then-Candidate Trump's head of security punched a man in the head while trying to grab the man's sign.

This happened in front of the Trump Tower. The judge says, President Trump can testify via videotape. The trial is scheduled to begin this week, in fact. Criminal Defense and Constitutional Attorney Page Pate with us now. So, a lot of people would look at this and say this raises a serious constitutional question. Can a state judge order a sitting president to testify? How likely will he be compelled to do so?

PAGE PATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: Well, Christi, at this point it looks like the testimony will go forward. I think the judge is relying on a prior federal court ruling that said when Bill Clinton was president that he could sit for a deposition and that deposition could be used in connection with the Paula Jones lawsuit.

So, a president can be recorded as far as testimony is concerned. It can be done at a different time than the trial itself, and then they'll play the recorded testify at the trial. So, as long as it doesn't directly interfere with a presidential duty or responsibility, they can tape him and they use that at trial.

PAUL: Can the president refuse to answer the questions?

PATE: Well, no. Any witness has the right to refuse to answer questions based on some sort of recognized privileged -- attorney- client, in this case, executive privilege or if there's some Fifth Amendment basis. But that's not what's at issue in this case, this is a straightforward civil lawsuit where a security guard, who apparently worked very closely with the president, before he was president, is being sued for his actions.

And the plaintiff says, look, Trump is also responsible because he either allowed this to happen or even encouraged it to happen. So, that will be an issue at trial and he'll have to answer those questions relating to his operation at Trump Tower at the time.

PAUL: OK. So, I want to ask you about something you just mentioned. President Trump, they say, didn't directly order the guards to act, but they contend, the protesters, that he had control over them and that they argue his campaign trail rhetoric gave the impression that violence would be condoned. How plausible is it that the language President Trump used during his rallies will come into play here?

PATE: Well, ultimately, Christi, that's going to be up to the jury. A lot of people don't understand, you know, when a security guard who's working for a company, does some sort of intentional wrong act -- I mean, he assaults someone, injures someone -- the company, the employer, is not necessarily liable unless they either directed that to happen or allowed it to happen by their actions or inactions.

So, if Trump was saying things that kind of gave a message to their staff that, hey, rough these folks up -- and we heard that during the campaign in various situations, then the president as well as his organization can be just as liable as his security guard who actually committed the assault.

PAUL: All righty. Page, I want to move on to these new allegations against journalist, Charlie Rose here. A makeup artist who worked for him for 22 years is suing him for sexual harassment, saying that he created a toxic work environmental for women.

We have to remember, Rose was fired from CBS News and PBS back in 2017 one day after the Washington Post had published a story about alleged harassment based on interviews with eight different women who described "unwanted sexual advances." So, do these numerous claims against him, do they make it easier or more difficult to prove the case against him in court in this specific case?

PATE: Well, that's a great point. I mean, when a plaintiff -- someone who is an employee, alleges a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment or some form of discrimination, what they try to show is a pattern of this type of activity. So, the more people who come forward either by filing lawsuits or just being willing to testify that this was a toxic atmosphere and it was made so by Charlie Rose's actions relating to harassment and any other type of intimidation, it makes it much more likely that those cases will succeed the more people who make this type of allegation, absolutely.

PAUL: The other interesting aspect of this is that plaintiff is suing Bloomberg as well because Rose's show was shot at Bloomberg Studios. How plausible is it that Bloomberg itself would show some sort of liability here?


PATE: I think it's unlikely, and it kind of goes back to what we were talking about with president and Trump tower. How much comtrol that Bloomberg have over that environment? How did they know about what Charlie Rose was allegedly doing at the time, and could they have done something to stop that.

Could they have improved the environment, made it safe -- made it an appropriate workplace?

So, it all goes to what they fail to do. They're not directly liable for what Charlie Rose did unless they knew about it and let it happen.

PAUL: So, I want to ask you about this case in New York as well, about police who've arrested this teenager. Who they say stabbed a classmate during a fight that this fight was over a girl.

Eighteen-year-old Tyler Flach pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in connection to this after-school fight. Investigators say several students recorded the fight that they shared it on social media. In fact, they're saying up to 50 people were there and saw it.

What is so disturbing to many people despite in addition to, I should say, the violence that was there was the fact that there were so many kids on their phones recording this and not calling for help.

Nobody called 911, nobody stepped in to stop it. Is there any space for those people who watched and did nothing to be charged?

PATE: Unfortunately or fortunately, depending upon the way you look at criminal law, no. The criminal code doesn't address someone's failure to do the right thing. Now, criminal law does address a situation where you have people encouraging that type of behavior.

I mean, you know, cheering them on, helping them in any way, making it a spectacle that people want to see and somehow helping that to happen. But simply standing by and pulling out your cell phone and taking a picture of it or a video of it that does not come under the realm of criminal law.

Obviously, there are -- there are many, many concerns about it from a societal standpoint, but criminal law does not require the kids to report something that they see that may be a crime.

PAUL: Tyler Flach there, the man who's charged with second-degree murder, the fact that it is all on a cell phone -- I mean, what does that mean for him? How do you argue -- how do you argue for him?

PATE: Well, I don't know how you're going to show that it didn't happen. I think the best hope that the defense can have in a case like that is they could show that it was either provoked in some way or that he didn't intend to kill the person, it was just an aggravated assault.

But you're obviously looking at clear criminal conduct, the question is how severe is it and what sort of punishment is he looking at?

PAUL: All right. Page Pate, always glad to have your perspective with us. Thank you, sir.

PATE: Thank you, Christi.

BLACKWELL: It's a crisis that really seems to be getting worse by the week. New stat show the number of teens who vape, doubling in record time.

Time magazine's cover story writer is up next to explain why she thinks one company, in particular, is responsible for fueling the health epidemic.

PAUL: Well, approximately, 200 people gathered outside the gates of Area 51 yesterday. We'll tell you what happened.



PAUL: We've been talking a lot about the escalating vaping crisis that's spreading it across the country. And America's largest retailer now, Wal-Mart, says it will stop selling e-cigarettes.

BLACKWELL: The decision also applies the Sam's Club outlets. Wal- Mart, says it will continue to sell out its current store inventory earlier this year. Maybe you remember this, Wal-Mart raised the minimum age to buy tobacco to 21. That change took effect, July 1st.

Now, the number of people contracting lung-related illnesses linked to vaping is increasing. The CDC reports more than 500 cases of lung disease in 38 states. At least eight people have died in seven states, and health officials say they expect that number to climb.

The recent figures show the number of teens using e-cigarettes doubled in the last two years. And the single company, Juul, has become the face of this growing public health crisis.

So, with me now is Jamie Ducharme, Time Magazine health writer. Jamie, good morning to you. You wrote the latest cover story, The New American Addiction: How Juul Hooked Kids and Ignited a Public Health Crisis.

First, this is not the only brand out there. It wasn't even the first brand of e-cigarette. Why is Juul responsible for, as you write, hooking kids and starting this health crisis? JAMIE DUCHARME, HEALTH REPORTER, TIME MAGAZINE: Sure. Yes, so, as you say, Juul is not the only e-cigarette for sale, but it seems that something about Juul's design really took off, especially with the younger crowd.

It's very sleek, it looks like a flash drive or an iPhone -- it fits in the palm of your hand. It's easy to use subtly or in public. And what's important to remember is that these products are not FDA approved and they've gone through only minimal amounts of testing just based on how long they've been on the market.

So, they were really allowed to proliferate without a ton of oversight from the government and from regulators.

BLACKWELL: You know, they have been as Time and CNN and other outlets have reported, criticized for what is seen as marketing to young people, you point out the similarities between what we're seeing from Juul's advertising and what we've seen historically from big tobacco in your peace with Time.

DUCHARME: Yes. So, Juul, it's important to note has always maintained that it did not market to children or to teenagers. It says its product is intended for adult smokers. But some research has placed images of historical tobacco advertisements side by side with Juul ads. And I have to say, it's pretty striking to see the similarities in color scheme and pose in, you know, text on the ad.

So, I guess you have to draw your own conclusions looking at those ads. But there are some striking similarities.


BLACKWELL: Now, nationally, we've had this conversation about the perils for young people, but let me ask you about the results for adults. One of the founders of Juul -- and this was a quote from your piece, called it one of the greatest opportunities for public health in the history of mankind. Where's the science on that?

DUCHARME: Yes. It's a lofty claim. And the science, I think, is not entirely there. There are some studies that suggest that e-cigarettes can help adult smokers quit or, you know, switch to an e-cigarette product off of a cigarette.

And, and there are some studies that suggest that a wide-scale switch to these products would save lives just because they contain fewer toxic chemicals than cigarettes. But there are also studies that say they don't work particularly well for smoking cessation, and that they have unique health risks.

Some studies have shown that they can damage your cardiovascular health, your respiratory health, even your DNA. So, I think the short answer is just that nobody really knows if that claim is true.

BLACKWELL: Yes. So, Wal-Mart, as we just reported, says that it's going to stop selling e-cigarettes. New York has now created this ban on flavored e-cigarettes, one in Michigan as well. The Trump administration has announced a ban on e-flavored, flavored e-cigarettes, I should say. There is also from some conservative groups, especially one, the Americans for Tax Reform group, they've launched this #wevapewevote, claiming that a ban on flavored e- cigarettes will cost President Trump the election.

How intense is this intra-party on the right -- this intra-party fight over a potential ban on flavored e-cigarettes.

DUCHARME: You know, it's interesting. The -- I think, the legislative and regulatory efforts around e-cigarettes have really kicked up recently. And for a long time, nobody was doing all that much including the FDA by a lot of accounts. And all of a sudden, this has become a huge political issue.

You know, I don't -- I don't know what the results will be, but I can tell you that I had a lot of very impassioned e-mails from readers. And I think -- I think passions are high on both sides of this issue and it's going to be really interesting to see how this affects the Trump administration.

BLACKWELL: Yes, we've been talking to president when he was there alongside. First Lady Melania Trump, talking about not liking vaping. And then, a tweet the next day, kind of walking back just a bit from his statements there.

Jamie Ducharme, thanks so much. It was a great piece in Time.

DUCHARME: Thanks so much.

PAUL: So, look at the turnout for the global climate strike. Young activists, widespread conversations about inaction on the climate crisis. Their demands for their future all across the globe, as you see there. We'll talk about it next.



PAUL: Listen, there were some pretty sizable crowds of students walking out of their schools to demand action on climate change. This was across the country. And not just across the country but around the world really at the end of the day.


PAUL: There were huge turnouts from New York, to Berlin. Organizers, saying this was the biggest climate change demonstration they've had so far.

BLACKWELL: So, what most of these students want is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The 16-year-old climate activists, Greta Thunberg, helped organize the day of demonstrations.

PAUL: Our Nina dos Santos is taking a look at the rallies around the globe for us. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NINA DOS SANTOS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: In Australia they gathered in hundreds of thousands, determined to make their voice heard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems that the only people standing on the wrong side of history on this issue is our government.

DOS SANTOS: A message of anger, desperation, but also hope.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really want to change, change the future. Because it's our future and I want to grow up in a good place.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm here for my kids' future. Honestly, if the politicians are doing absolutely nothing and I'm sick to death of it.

DOS SANTOS: Friday's global day of action began in the Pacific Islands. Countries that have already been impacted by rising sea levels. In Asia too, students demanded action from their political leaders.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our education won't be important if we don't have a life to live for anymore.

DOS SANTOS: It is a call to action that reverberated around the world. In the Philippines --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are unstoppable, a better world is possible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are unstoppable, a better world is possible.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we want? Climate action. When do we want it? Now!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do we want? Climate action. When do we want it? Now!

DOS SANTOS: And in Africa.

Here in London, thousands marched on Parliament. Many of them, children, accompanied by their parents and who'd made their own homemade signs. The message was the same, the world over. It's time today's current leaders took stock of the environmental legacy they're leaving behind.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not going to have a vote in 18 months. I don't have that kind of political power yet. So, I'm exercising my voice the only way I can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm trying to kind of make people think, you know, actually, this is something I really need to be thinking about. Something I really need to be acting on.

DOS SANTOS: It was a similar theme from protestors in the French capital.

And also in Germany, where activists shut down roads.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): A lot of people support our movement, but we want to go a step further because politicians decide on our future. We urgently demand that something happens.

DOS SANTOS: A year ago in Sweden, Greta Thunberg began a weekly school strike for climate. Today, on those same streets, students gathered in the thousands, while she travels the world, advocating for change.

A tribute to the power of one individual too young to vote, yet influential enough to make world leaders listen. Nina dos Santos, CNN, London.



BLACKWELL: When President Trump visits the United Nations on Monday, he will hold a session on religious persecution instead of attending a summit to address climate change. A deputy assistant secretary of state will represent the U.S. at that summit.

CHURCH: And remember, during the G7 summit in France, President Trump skipped a session focused on climate change that all the other world leaders had attended.

Listen, up next, a man in Illinois accused of driving his car through a crowded mall. Yes, inside a mall.




PAUL: What police are saying this morning about it.








UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop! Stop driving!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, this is not happening right now. What the --


BLACKWELL: Yes, there's a chance you'd say the same thing if you saw this. Police in a Chicago suburb have arrested a man who drove his SUV through a mall.

PAUL: As you see, inside a mall. Investigators say the suspect drove through a Sears store into the main area of the Woodfield Mall. This is in Schaumburg. In the video, you can see the drivers black SUV crashing into kiosks.

Police, say witness has called 911, they were mistaking the shattering glass with gunfire. Thankfully, no one was injured. Bystanders were able to hold that man until police arrested him.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop! Stop driving!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, this is not happening right now. What the --

What the -- oh, my God. What the --


PAUL: A lot of bleeping going on this morning. Investigators haven't revealed a motive, but they say -- listen, it doesn't appear to be an act of terror, it doesn't appear to be premeditated. They're looking at the possibility that were -- there was a medical issue that the driver was suffering from.

BLACKWELL: So, hey, listen, if you woke up thinking, I wonder what happened with that whole storm Area 51 thing? First, no aliens sighted at Area 51.

PAUL: CNN can confirm --

BLACKWELL: Yes, we can confirm that. But there were a few hundred people who gathered around the gate there at this event. Nearly 2,000 though, flooded Nevada for events surrounding Friday night's raid.

As I said, about 200 of them actually showed up to the main gate.

PAUL: Now, the local sheriff, says there were a couple of people arrested for minor issues. The U.S. Navy has confirmed, meanwhile, as we talked about the timing of all of this, they've confirmed videos purported to show UFOs are real.

Now, and maybe spokesman is calling them unidentified aerial phenomena, not unidentified flying objects for whatever reason. I don't know why that characterization matters. But, they can't tell us what they are.

BLACKWELL: Unidentified is the most important part of both of those -- PAUL: Yes it is. Next to our NEW DAY, starts after the break.