Return to Transcripts main page


Pelosi will Sent Articles Soon; Prince Harry Defied Queen's Wishes; Olympic Committee's Protest Policy. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired January 10, 2020 - 06:30   ET





REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Well, I'm not holding them indefinitely. I'll send them over when I'm ready. And that will probably be soon.


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: She will send them over when she's ready, and that will probably be soon. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisting she will turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but declining to provide an exact timeline.

Once she does hand them over, the Senate trial could begin very soon. We're talking as soon as next week.

Back with us, Charlie Dent and Margaret Talev.

Now, when Nancy Pelosi says she will turn them over when she's ready, she means it. How do we know? Because of what happened to Chairman Adam Smith of the Armed Services Committee. And it began right here on NEW DAY yesterday when we asked a very simple question, which is, do you think that the House should turn over the articles of impeachment. This is what he said on air yesterday.


REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): But at the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate. I don't -- I think it was perfectly advisable for the speaker to try to leverage that, to get a better deal. At this point it doesn't look like that's going to happen. And, yes, I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate.


BERMAN: Yes, I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate.


BERMAN: Said it in very crystal clear words. CAMEROTA: That didn't go over well.

BERMAN: About two hours later, he issues this statement on Twitter saying, I misspoke this morning. I do believe we should do everything we can to force the Senate to have a fair trial. If the speaker believes that holding onto the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate, then I wholeheartedly support that decision.

Now, we can quibble with the use of the words misspoke. Clearly he didn't misspeak, he back tracked or reversed himself or thought better of what he initially said. He didn't misspeak.

But, Charlie, what does this tell you about Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic caucus and how she wants to handle this?


CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it's pretty clear that Adam Smith, he was absolutely right in his first statement. He's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He doesn't want to get cross wise with the speaker. But he was right.

And I do think that every -- most -- a lot of Democrats realize that this was a tactical error by the speaker. That, you know, the Senate runs the Senate and the House runs the House. Could you imagine if senators were going to try to dictate to the House how to run their House impeachment proceeding? Well, those House members would have considered that a human rights violation. Same thing with the Senate.

The speaker took a hostage here, the articles of impeachment. She was not prepared to shoot that hostage. She's going to send them over. That was always the case. And McConnell's not going to budge.

That said, they're right that the Senate should conduct a fair trial of the witnesses and more evidence. That's fine. But this is a tactical mistake.

CAMEROTA: Was it, Margaret? Was -- is this seen on Capitol Hill as a tactical error? And also if you'd like to weigh in on how in real time we watched Nancy Pelosi behind the scenes get somehow to Chairman Smith.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, sorry, I was trying to keep a straight face when you played it back, but it was just like one of those moments where you were like, wow, right?

So I don't -- I think that she would say -- and I think that most of her leadership would say, no, they don't think it was a tactical error, but that the challenge and the question has always been kind of like the dismount on this maneuver. Like, what's the timing? How do you get out of it? Under what conditions do you send those articles forward?

But I think she felt that the value was in keeping this kind of open ended over the holiday break it enabled -- it gave time for the American public to sort of think about it. It gave time to see if any additional details would come out. It gave time to test the premise of whether there was enough concern among those key Republican senators, that they would sign on and push for documents and witnesses. And when everybody came back from the break, it became apparent that that probably wasn't going to happen. That more information had come out that showed that the White House wasn't fully disclosing some really relevant and crucial information. But it didn't really matter in terms of the way the public reacted to that.

And so I think we've been in this situation for several days where the issue for the speaker has been, OK, how do I move the process forward now? Does she name the managers first? Does she see if the president's head will explode first? Does she just get it over with? And to make those decisions, she had to kind of have some discussions inside her caucus. And some of them have become public. And then those have been sort of batted down.

But I -- you know, it sounds to me like this is going to be resolved within the next couple of days. I guess we don't know until we see it, but that's certainly what it looks like and that the process will move in the Senate the way -- the way McConnell directs it.

BERMAN: This could all happen very soon, right? I mean we could hear from Nancy Pelosi as soon as today and have a schedule within the next few days and this trial could start next week.

I do want to say one thing. One of the things that did come out, obviously, is John Bolton says he is willing to testify. So now, by waiting, Republicans, when they vote on the Senate on witnesses, have to vote knowing that John Bolton is willing to talk if they try. And that happened while Nancy Pelosi it the pause button there.

CAMEROTA: Good point.


CAMEROTA: OK, Charlie, Margaret, thank you both very much.

TALEV: Thanks, guys.

DENT: Thanks, guys.

CAMEROTA: So the royal family rift is now out in the public. We now know that Prince Harry defied her majesty with his bombshell announcement of stepping back from the royal family. We have new details next.



CAMEROTA: OK, we are now learning that the queen was not only blindsided, but that Prince Harry also defied her by issuing a statement about he and his wife Meghan Markle that the queen did not want released. Now Meghan Markle is back in Canada without Harry.

CNN's Max Foster's been covering this for us. He's live in London with more.

So why aren't they together right now, Max?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think this was planned, her going back, because as we understand it, baby Archie is in Canada. We are expecting her to come back, not be there very long effectively, because there's an engagement on Tuesday that she's due to attend and she hasn't canceled it. So we're only expecting her to be in Canada for a couple of days. But, obviously, a crucial couple of days because Harry has effectively been left to face the music.

We've got Charles' team, the queen's team, and Williams' team all coming together and they've got to find a solution. They've been told to find some sort of solution to this as quickly as possible. They are crisis meetings. They've got to work with the Sussex household and the government, extraordinarily, to try to find and define the role of this couple going forward.

What we've been told is that the other senior royals don't see what's currently proposed by the Sussexs as a workable solution. That suggests that the Sussexs have to compromise on something somewhere. If they don't, that's a problem, Alisyn.

BERMAN: Max, you're there, obviously. Where do you see support for the couple overall at this point?

FOSTER: Well, I think it's interesting. I think -- I think they've certainly lost support with this latest controversy. Not because of what they want. Everyone understands the pressures they're under, and they've obviously been suffering, their plans for the future. People relate to that. It's just the handling of it and undermining the queen, which is a red line, I have to say, in British society, across all societies.

What I would say, though, is that there's a -- there's a difference of opinion between young and old. A lot of younger people don't like the way they're being treated in the tabloid media. They actually think they're doing great things and trying to change the world on issues that they really care about. And actually there's a real sense of pride in the way that the duchess is coming in and standing up to the British establishment. So I think younger people are more sympathetic. But I think overall they've lost a bit of goodwill over this latest episode just because they've undermined the queen.

CAMEROTA: Max, when they say -- when the queen says they have to find a solution, what is a solution?

FOSTER: I think that's difficult. I think if you speak to a lot of royal historians, there is no precedent for a hybrid role in the way that they're describing where you're half in and half out.


It just doesn't work because the definition of the role is to support the queen. And anything that you do outside that can't compromise it. And if you're going out looking for private work and private money, there's a lot of conflict of interest that can blow up there.

So she does want a solution. She wants her grandson to be happy. But as she's proved over this very long reign, she always puts duty above family and personal satisfaction, frankly. So if she feels that what Harry is proposing is going to compromise the wider monarchy, I think she's going to have to have a word with him. I don't think she would fire him, but she might suggest that he want -- he might want to step back from royal duties altogether. That would have to be a big choice for the couple when the duchess returns next week.

CAMEROTA: That's really interesting.

BERMAN: It is. But you could see from Harry and Meghan's perspective that they look at duty in a different way, perhaps. They think their duty might be to their son, their duty might be to the privacy, their duty might be to the legacy of Princess Diana and everything that happened to her. You have love, economics, taxpayer dollars all tied up in one thing.

CAMEROTA: These are family issues. I mean these are all family dynamics in many families, but theirs is playing out on an international stage and seems to be a bigger problem.

Max, thank you very much for all that insight.

BERMAN: It really is interesting. I am on the side of love, just so you know, in case you were wondering where I am.

CAMEROTA: Are you?

BERMAN: Always. I always -- I always come down on the side of love.

CAMEROTA: You're a hopeless romantic, John Berman.

BERMAN: It's true. It's all true.

All right, Iran and the United States may have stepped back from the brink, but obviously the tensions remain high. So what would it take for the two countries to make peace? What Iran's ambassador to the United Nations told me in a one-on-one interview, that's next.



CAMEROTA: The International Olympic Committee is telling athletes that some protests are now against the rules.

Andy Scholes has more in the "Bleacher Report."

What's this about, Andy?


So the IOC releasing these new guidelines ahead of the Tokyo summer games. They're just months away now. And rule 50 of the Olympic charter says athletes will engage in no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas. That means demonstrations such as the raised fist of Tommy Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics are now prohibited.

There's no stated punishment for athletes who break the rules. It's going to be on a case by case basis. Athletes are still allowed to express their views on social media and in their interviews. The opening ceremony for the summer games is July 24th.


SCHOLES: As Oklahoma City fans welcoming back Russell Westbrook for the first time since his blockbuster trade to the Rockets, Russell played his first 11 seasons in OKC get standing ovations, MVP chants and a video tribute. Russell had a game high 34 points, but it wasn't enough. Chris Paul, who Westbrook was traded for, you see him there, dribbling through the legs of the defender. Paul led the Thunder to a 113-92 win.

But, John, it was still a very special night for Westbrook. You could just see how much love those fans in OKC still have for their former superstar.

BERMAN: Quite a game.

Andy, thank you very much for that.

So President Trump, at his first campaign rally of the year, is making a new claim about Iran's, what he calls, imminent attacks to hit the U.S. interest overseas that led him to order the killing of their top military commander.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Soleimani was actively planning new attacks and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad. But we stopped him and we stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold.


BERMAN: The White House has offered no evidence to support that claim. And CNN has spoken with multiple lawmakers who said that embassy attack, that planned embassy attack was not mentioned in this week's briefings.

On a separate note, I sat down with Iran's ambassador to the United Nations to talk about the tensions between the two countries.


BERMAN: President Trump says that Iran appears to be standing down. Is he right?

MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: With the action that we took the other day, we concluded that phase of our military action against the U.S. forces. It depends on the United States. We didn't start this episode. It was started by assassinating a top general of the Iranian armed forces in the territory of Iraq. This is against international law. This is against the Iraqi sovereignty. So that phase, when they started something like this, and Iran responded proportionately, that phase was over. So if the U.S. is going to start again, definitely we will have to respond.

BERMAN: A Revolutionary Guard commander, Abdelah Argaki (ph), says that Iran will exact, his words, harsher revenge against the United States. Why would he say that?

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: I do not know exactly what you are referring to here. But our position, the official position, which was started by the government officials, was that Iran's action was over for the time being. But we are (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: What message do you want to send, then, to elements, perhaps, in the Revolutionary Guard? Perhaps elements in organizations like Hezbollah or Iraqi militias that do have some loyalty to Iran that they should stand down barring further U.S. action.


TAKHT-RAVANCHI: We can speak on behalf of the Iranian government. We are not responsible for any action that others might take. It is not our job to say that this gentleman or that gentleman should do this or should not do this.

BERMAN: So you will not ask Iraqi militias to refrain from attacking Americans?

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: It is not our job to ask this group or that group. We are responsible for whatever action we take.

BERMAN: The U.S. vice president, Mike Pence, says that intelligence shows that the Iranian missile strike was meant to kill Americans. He believes that the missiles were intended to kill U.S. troops. What's the answer?

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: You know, we said before we took our military action, that we would choose the timing and the place. And we chose the place where the attack against Soleimani was initiated. And we do not consider, you know, high number of casualties as an instrumental element in our calculations.

BERMAN: Did you try not to kill Americans?

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: As I said, this is -- this is not part of -- I'm not a military man. I cannot tell you exactly what was going on. But what I can tell you is that the target was chosen in order to show that we are capable of hitting the target where the plan to kill Soleimani was organized.

BERMAN: To hit the target, but not necessarily kill a high number of Americans. TAKHT-RAVANCHI: As I said, we are not interested in -- we are not

looking after killing Americans within this operation.

BERMAN: The president, in his address to the nation, said the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.

What ways does Iran believe it could embrace peace alongside the United States?

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: First and foremost, the U.S. has to implement what it has agreed to. First, it has to respect the agreements that the United States, with a number of countries and Iran reached. The decision to withdraw from JCPOA was against international law. It was against the will of the international community. So we cannot buy this that there is a sincerity in this claim they want to have dialogue with Iran.

BERMAN: In a letter to the United Nations, a new letter to the United Nations, the U.S. says we stand ready to engage without preconditions in serious negotiations with Iran with the goal of preventing further endangerment of international peace and security or escalation by the Iranian regime. We stand ready to engage without preconditions.

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: So why they are putting the knife on the throat with these economic sanctions at the same time they are claiming to be ready for a dialogue. Then that -- you know, these are mutually exclusive. Either you want to have a dialogue or either you want to apply sanctions.

BERMAN: So the answer, as far as you're concerned today is, no?

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: Definitely no. Definitely -- it's a definitely no answer.

BERMAN: No dialogue.

TAKHT-RAVANCHI: No dialogue as long as this policy -- this policy of animosity towards the Iranian people continues.


BERMAN: So it was an interesting discussion.

CAMEROTA: Very interesting.

BERMAN: He definitively said -- he definitively said this phase of operation is over for Iran. That they're done.

He also made clear, he said, casualties were not our goal here in the attack. To hear that out loud was very interesting.

He said no dialogue going forward.

He would not commit to saying to the Iraqi militias that they shouldn't attack U.S. troops, though. There was a line there that I thought was very interesting. And, finally, and we didn't play this sound, but I think it is very

important. I asked him a lot about what General Soleimani was doing in Iraq and if he was planning to target U.S. troops. And his answer was so careful, right? He would not say no. He said the United States hasn't presented any convincing evidence of that. It's on the United States to present that evidence. Which is not a no.

CAMEROTA: And I thought it was also interesting that you got him to confirm what our military analysts said to us as basically it was happening, that the Iranians were trying to prove their -- that they could hit the target. The precision with which they could hit targets. And, therefore, I think we can conclude that they weren't trying to kill Americans.

BERMAN: That's what he said. He said, they hit what they were aiming at.

All right, so much else to talk about this morning.

CAMEROTA: We do have some breaking developments on the plane crash investigation in Iran.

And NEW DAY continues right now.


JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A U.S. official tells CNN that the Boeing 737 was shot down by Russian-made surface to air missiles.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're saying that there were two Russian surface to air missiles launched. They have some data to support it.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: This new information reinforces the need for a thorough investigation.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If any president wants to drag our nation into another forever Middle East war, they require the --