Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Impeachment Stalemate; Buttigieg Continues Attacks on Biden; Protesters Attack U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 31, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:26]

RYAN NOBLES, CNN HOST: Hi there. I'm Ryan Nobles, in today for Brooke Baldwin. Thank you so much for joining me.

And welcome to a special edition of NEWSROOM.

We're going to begin with breaking news out of Iraq, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on lockdown, as protesters attempt to break into the compound. Fires are still burning, after hours of violence. The group, angry over recent U.S. airstrikes at an Iran-backed militia, at one point tried to smash down a door.

Earlier today, security teams deploying tear gas in an effort to calm the crowds. Additional U.S. troops are now being sent in. And President Trump is directly blaming Iran, saying he will -- quote -- "hold the regime fully responsible."

Ryan Browne is standing by at the Pentagon.

But, first, let's get right out to our senior international correspondent, Arwa Damon. She is in the region.

So, Arwa, first give us some context on who these groups are and why this has erupted so violently.

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, this, first of all, is a direct reaction to those strikes that were carried out by the U.S. on Sunday against a group that is called Kataib Hezbollah.

These protesters are not your ordinary protesters. They are mostly part of a paramilitary group, of which Kataib Hezbollah is also a member, that ostensibly falls under the control of the Iraqi security forces, although how much actual control Baghdad has over them, well, many will tell you, not a lot.

These protesters in the first images that emerged that we saw had three key figures among them. They had the leader Kataib Hezbollah himself, plus two other key leaders within this paramilitary group, which is made up of former Shia militia fighters and was created in reaction to the ISIS takeover of huge swathes of Iraq back in 2014.

So, when the Americans carried out these strikes, they were viewed by the Iraqi government as being direct strikes on the Iraqi security forces. And this demonstration by this particular group of protesters is, according to a statement that Kataib Hezbollah itself released, not meant to be just a display of anger, but an open-ended protest to demand that the U.S. leave Iraq, but also to send a message that they can quite literally, that they are strong enough and brazen enough to march through all of these checkpoints, not really be stopped, and end up at the gates of the United States in Iraq.

NOBLES: All right, let's go to Ryan now.

So, Ryan, what is the response from U.S. officials?

RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: Well, the U.S. is taking a couple of steps here.

One, they very publicly have called on Baghdad, the Iraqi government, to take a role in curbing these protests, in safeguarding U.S. facilities and U.S. personnel. In fact, we just heard from the White House. They issued a statement saying that President Trump had spoken with the Iraqi prime minister, saying that they -- really underscoring the need to safeguard U.S. personnel, because, as Arwa mentioned, these checkpoints, these protesters, many of whom are members of this militia, were allowed to just approach the -- approach the embassy grounds.

And the other thing they're doing is bolstering the U.S. military presence in the region. So they have deployed a contingent of additional U.S. Marines to the embassy. These Marines are specialists in security.

They come from a crisis response team that is in the region. And so they're doing that. In addition to that, they flew two Apache helicopters -- you're seeing images of that -- as a show of force over the area. They fired these flares. They're defensive flares are meant to protect the helicopters from attack.

But they are also used as a warning sign often, so the show of force to really underscore the message that the U.S. military could respond, if called upon.

NOBLES: All right, covering all angles of it, Ryan Browne at the Pentagon, Arwa Damon in Istanbul, thank you both.

Let's talk more about it now with CNN military analyst Colonel Cedric Leighton, and Brett Bruen, former U.S. diplomat and former White House director of global engagement under President Obama. He's joining us from Mexico City today.

So, Colonel, let me start with you.

As you heard Ryan Browne's report there, the White House sending additional troops in to the embassy, also using these Apache helicopters, firing off these flares.

What exactly -- with these additional troops and this show of force, what's their goal here?

[15:05:04]

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Ryan, the main goal is to protect the remaining members that are at the embassy right now.

So what they're doing is, they're not only showing force, but they're engaging in operations that are designed to dissuade the Iraqi protesters from getting into the embassy even further, and from causing damage within that embassy.

So, their main job is to make sure that nothing more happens, that we don't have a repeat of, let's say, God forbid, the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran. They want to make sure that none of that happens here in Baghdad.

NOBLES: So, Brett, Arwa is reporting now that this is being considered what she said an open-ended protest, which means that there isn't necessarily an end in sight.

Just how much danger are U.S. personnel inside the embassy right now? And, from your view, is the American government doing enough to protect them?

BRETT BRUEN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT: Yes, let me take that point first and ask why there wasn't additional steps taken before the U.S. engaged in this military action to protect our embassy, to protect our personnel?

These protesters, this militia should never have gotten that close. We should have had much more resources, many more military personnel in our facility in Baghdad to protect those people, especially after Benghazi.

I mean, Congressman Pompeo was one of the most vocal voices advocating that more proactively needed to be done to protect our diplomatic personnel. Why wasn't it done in this case?

NOBLES: And so what you're suggesting, then, Brett, is that when they knew that they were going to have this counterstrike against the Iranian-backed militia group, that they should have taken steps to fortify the United States Embassy at the same time, they should have expected something like this to happen?

BRUEN: Yes, I think it was a rather reckless retaliatory response.

Rather than first strategizing, they fired first, and then they thought about the consequences and the collateral damage for our personnel after that. And that really is a dangerous move and one that puts our people needlessly at risk.

And I think the administration has to answer for that.

NOBLES: Right. So, Colonel, what does this mean for the relationship between the United States and Iraq right now?

And we have to keep in mind that even though the force may not be as big, there is still a significant American-led coalition there. How are they impacted by all of this?

LEIGHTON: Well, Ryan, that's absolutely right. There is a significant American-led troop contingent in Iraq right now.

And their protection, their ability to not only conduct operations, but their safety is very much at risk at the present time. What we're looking at here is a much more dangerous situation, one in which the ability to conduct operations is limited, but also a situation in which there could be a flare-up at any moment with tensions this high.

And that is why what we're talking about here is, is very simply not only the protection of American forces, but also the ability of us to think first before we shoot. And that fact that we didn't do that, as our other guest has pointed out, is very, very telling on how bad this administration is actually working this policy.

It's not a thought-out policy, and it can put our forces at risk.

NOBLES: Right.

So, Brett, I want to get your take on how President Trump is handling all of this. He is publicly holding Iran accountable. He tweeted -- quote -- "To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don't want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time."

Not exactly sure what the president is calling for here. What is your interpretation of what he means by this tweet?

BRUEN: Well, I think what he's trying to say is that the Iraqis should try to push Iranians, Iranian-backed militia out of their country.

But the problem with his approach is, we don't garner their support by having a U.S.-first strategy. We ought to have consulted the Iraqi government. We ought to have gotten their permission. And then we should have worked alongside them.

Instead, what we did was ignored their warnings. And we have made it much more difficult for them to cooperate with us. And just in a moment's time, to add that this makes it much more difficult for them to provide us support and intelligence, just as we are trying to add pressure against Iran and obviously also against the remnants of ISIS.

NOBLES: So, Colonel, Senator Bob Menendez, of course, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he did weigh in on this situation.

And this is what he said in a statement: "While the Trump administration has touted its maximum pressure campaign against Iran, the results so far have been more threats against international commerce, emboldened and more violent proxy attacks across the Middle East, and now the death of an American citizen in Iraq."

[15:10:11] Do you agree with Senator Menendez's take here? Is President Trump actually making the Middle East less safe for Americans and American troops there right now?

LEIGHTON: Well, certainly, that's what the indications are right now. I think Senator Menendez is right that the situation is much more dangerous in the Middle East than it needs to be.

It's already a very volatile place, as we all know. But the issue here is needlessly to provoke the Iranians is making our situation much more tenuous there. It is also creating an environment in which we cannot do the things that we need to do in order to maintain not only the safety of our troops over there, but also the safety of our country at large.

And that is a very, very big problem.

NOBLES: All right, Colonel Leighton, Brett Bruen, thank you both for being here. Happy new year. We appreciate it.

LEIGHTON: You bet. Thanks, Ryan. Happy new year.

NOBLES: Up next: Pete Buttigieg doubling down on his strategy to go after former Vice President Joe Biden. We will discuss whether the heated 2020 race will hurt or help Democrats.

Plus, as President Trump's impeachment trial looms in the Senate, one Republican says she's open to calling witnesses.

And we're watching New Year's Eve celebrations around the world. Take a look at how Dubai rang in 2020 just moments ago.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:23]

NOBLES: Mayor Pete Buttigieg doubling down, on the heels of going after Joe Biden for his vote on the Iraq War, Buttigieg taking another swipe at the former vice president over his son Hunter Biden's role on a Ukrainian company's board.

Buttigieg telling the Associated Press -- quote -- "I would not have wanted to see that happen. And, at the same time, again, I think this is being used to divert attention from what's really at stake in the impeachment process. There's been no allegation, let alone a finding of any wrongdoing, but in my administration, we will have very high standards around ethics and making sure that we do everything we can to prevent even the appearance of a conflict."

Here now to discuss this, Eliza Collins, national political reporter for "The Wall Street Journal," someone who sat through many Bernie Sanders rallies with me on the trail, and, of course, CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip.

Great to have both of you.

So, Abby, let's start with you.

How do 2020 Democrats balance going on the attack and trying to beat Biden, but then without lending credence to these unfounded allegations?

I actually found it interesting the way Buttigieg answered this question, because I have tried to get some of the other 2020 Democrats to try and go down this road as it relates to Hunter Biden, and they just don't go there. So how do they kind of balance this?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, this has been a balancing act for quite some time.

I think, early on in the process, you saw some of the other candidates hint at the same thing, which is that I -- in my administration, this sort of thing won't happen, but, at the same time, there's no validity to the concerns about -- the questions about Joe Biden that are being raised by the president and his allies.

And it is a fine line, because for some candidates, like the Warrens and Bernie Sanderses of the world, this ethical comparison, the sort of new way of doing politics vs. tackling corruption, the sort of old way of raising money, the old way of influence and of money in politics, is a part of their platform.

And I think what you see here with Buttigieg is an attempt to try to get at that segment of the population that is concerned about changing the way that politics is usually run, where these sorts of things, maybe they're not illegal, and maybe they're not even unethical, maybe nothing actually happened, but the appearance of impropriety is what I think some voters in the Democratic Party are particularly concerned with.

NOBLES: Yes, the question is, can you separate the two issues, right?

PHILLIP: Yes.

NOBLES: The issue that Hunter Biden served on this board may have had nothing to do with the overall mess in Ukraine, but, regardless, they have been so intertwined because of impeachment.

So, Eliza, despite all the divisiveness in Washington, Vice President Biden telling folks in New Hampshire that he would consider a Republican running mate, but then added, "I can't think of one right now."

It seems pretty unlikely that that is actually going to happen. But, Eliza, I know you cover a lot of these candidates on the progressive side of things. I can't imagine in any way, shape or form in a Democratic primary progressive voters are going to react kindly to this idea of reaching across the aisle.

ELIZA COLLINS, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Absolutely not.

As you mentioned, we cover a lot of Bernie Sanders rallies. Those voters are about as far left as you can be. But what Joe Biden is trying to do here is, he's trying to sort of

push a message of unity. By saying he would consider a Republican, but there isn't one at the moment is making him not alienate all Republicans. He is really making a play for some of those soft, moderate Republicans and independents, if he were to make it to a general election.

So what he's trying to do is not alienate those voters, but also not go say, I'm really considering it. He went on in those comments to talk about, there are a lot of women, there are a lot of minorities who he would also consider. And, again, he said there wasn't anyone he could think of at the moment.

NOBLES: I think, if you gave me a list of 100 things that might happen in this campaign, Joe Biden selecting a Republican as a running mate would probably come in at 99 or 100. That's for sure.

(LAUGHTER)

[15:20:03]

NOBLES: So, Abby, but on the other side, Biden said that, if elected, he would do everything he can to nominate -- or I shouldn't say that -- he would consider nominating former President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court, but only if Obama would accept it.

I don't think President Obama has any interest in that. But is this an example of a Biden trying to be everything to everyone? He just wants everybody to get along and try and give everybody a -- you get a piece of candy, you get a Supreme Court seat.

PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, President Obama seems pretty happy golfing in Hawaii right now. I'm not sure he's like really eager for this lifetime Supreme Court appointment.

But it's -- Joe Biden knows that it's never going to be a bad thing in this Democratic Party to say something nice about President Obama, to even suggest bringing President Obama literally back into the political process, which is what this sort of Supreme Court stuff is all about.

And it's not the first time that we have heard this exact same scenario. Hillary Clinton back in 2016 also entertained this idea back when she was trying to do a very similar thing to what Biden is doing, which is to say, I'm running to continue this legacy of the most popular Democratic president in recent history.

And so that's what this is all about, is just bringing Obama back into the conversation. But, I mean, honestly, Obama seems pretty happy retired, golfing, enjoying his life. And the last time this came up, he did say -- he did kind of bat down the idea. I don't think he's particularly interested in it.

NOBLES: Wasn't it he read like 75 books or something last year? He's got a Spotify playlist. He's got other things happening right now.

PHILLIP: He's got a lot of stuff going on.

NOBLES: Yes, Supreme Court not something he's thinking about.

So, Eliza, you have also been doing some reporting on the battleground state of Arizona. Democrats won big there in 2018. They're also investing a lot of resources in 2020. Arizona, a state President Trump loves, he'd like to keep that in his column.

How are they responding to this?

COLLINS: Well, Arizona is a state that's been red for a very long time. He did win it in 2016, but by a very small margin.

And then, in 2018, the Senate seat flipped to a Democrat for the first time in decades. And so Democrats are looking at that. They also got some other statewide seats, and they made gains in all the counties, but two.

So they're looking at that state. They're pushing money in. They're putting people on the ground early, because they really feel like that is a state that could be in play in 2020. And if they were to win that seat, that could really scramble things for the president.

Of course, he'd have to win all of those battleground states in the Midwest that he came in -- that were very close. Now, Republicans, on the other hand, say that the president is very popular in Arizona in 2018. They have identified -- the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign have identified 200,000 voters that they say voted for the president in '16, but did not show up in '18.

So they're hoping to drive those people out. And they say, yes, it's competitive, but they think that they will keep it red.

NOBLES: All right, so, Eliza Collins, Abby Phillip, the three of us have been living in 2020 for quite some time, but I'm here to tell you guys it actually starts tomorrow. 2020 actually legitimately begins tomorrow.

PHILLIP: Finally, right? Finally. We have been waiting for this.

(CROSSTALK)

NOBLES: Yes.

All right, thank you, guys, so much for joining me. I appreciate it.

COLLINS: Thanks.

NOBLES: President Trump lashing out again today on Twitter over his pending impeachment trial, calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- quote -- "overrated."

We will take you live to Capitol Hill with how this could all play out in the Senate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:28:12]

NOBLES: This Friday, a D.C. appeals court will hear arguments in two cases that could have major implications for President Trump.

One case pertains to whether the House can get access to Mueller's grand jury materials. The other case will eventually determine if former White House counsel Don McGahn will have to testify before the House.

Now, if that happens, Democrats argue his testimony could lead to more articles of impeachment.

So let's bring in our congressional team, CNN's Phil Mattingly and Lauren Fox.

Phil, I'm going to start with you.

The earliest possible start date for a Senate trial would be next Wednesday. What are you hearing about the strategy for Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, we will start with McConnell.

And I think the strategy right now, as they continue to wait for the articles of impeachment to actually be sent over, is basically to just go about their work until they receive them.

There's been no sense whatsoever -- in fact, I'm told explicitly there will be no shift in McConnell's posture, that, if they want witnesses, it's not going to be something they get in the initial resolution that he's supposed to be negotiating with Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

And so their plan at this point in time is to move forward with the Senate's business until they get those articles. Now, when they get those articles, what the leader has laid out is that he wants at least the first portion of the Senate trial to be presentations from both sides.

And then if they have the votes to move forward with witnesses or subpoenaing documents after that, that's something they can deal with after the fact. That's obviously a divergence from where Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is at this moment.

And that split has not been bridged over, over the course of the last couple of weeks, but that, at least for the moment, Ryan, is where things stand.

NOBLES: OK, so the question now, Lauren, is, will there be this moderate group of Republicans that somewhat rise up and force the majority leader into a position where he's got to take a more public or assertive stance as it relates to witnesses?

And we look to these senators like Susan Collins. And she was on Maine public radio earlier today. And Collins said that she would be -- quote -- "open" to witnesses at a Senate trial, but thinks it's premature at this point.

[15:30:00]