Return to Transcripts main page
New Day Saturday
Recording of President Trump Demanding the Firing of Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch; A Possible Third Case of the Deadly Coronavirus Being Investigated in the U.S.; The Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump Begins on a New Stage. Aired 5-6a ET
Aired January 25, 2020 - 05:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[05:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST OF THE LATE SHOW: This trial will go just like Donald Trump's dating career; quick and disappointing and no questions asked.
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST OF JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE: Democrats chose the president's favorite, Adam Schiff, to kick things off today.
UNKNOWN: The Sergeant in Arms will make the proclamation.
UNKNOWN: All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The eyes of the nation, the eyes of history, the eyes of the founding fathers are upon us. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): The country is watching to see if we can rise to the occasion.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): The president went to extraordinary lengths to cheat in the next election.
UNKNOWN: The only conclusion will be that the president has done absolutely nothing wrong.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost.
UNKNOWN: Executive privilege and other nonsense. Mr. Nadler, it is not nonsense.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): The call lays there the president's willingness to do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
SCHIFF: The American people do not agree on much but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth. I implore you, give America a fair trial. She's worth it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This is New Day Weekend with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul.
CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to you. Give America a fair trial. You just heard there the closing words of lead impeachment manager, Adam Schiff, as he asked senators to allow witnesses and evidence in the president's impeachment trial.
At 10 o'clock this morning the president's legal team is beginning its defense and they promised it's going to be a preview of the case that they're going to detail in full next week.
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: In the meantime, a voice appearing to be President Trump's, recorded demanding the firing of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. And a possible third case of the deadly coronavirus being investigated in the United States.
PAUL: So the third impeachment trial of a U.S. president in history begins on a new stage today. A three hour session from President Trump's defense team sets the table here for a crucial vote on whether new witnesses such as formal national security advisor John Bolton will be allowed to testify.
BLACKWELL: Major question, did House Democrats do enough, their argument is to sway four Republican senators to risk the wrath of President Trump. CNN Sara Murray has more now on House Democrats final day of opening arguments.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): The president abused the powers entrusted in him by the American people in a scheme to suppress evidence, escape accountability, and orchestrate a massive cover up.
SARA MURRAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In their final day of opening arguments, Democrats condemned President Trump's efforts to block witnesses.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): President Trump forced those officials to choose between submitting to the demands of their boss or break the law.
MURRAY: And the Trump administration's refusal to hand over any documents to impeachment investigators.
REP. SYLVIA GARCIA (D-TX): No documents, zero, goose egg, nada.
MURRAY: Impeachment managers set the stakes arguing the president abused his power when he attempted to withhold a White House meeting and security aid unless Ukraine pursued investigations into Joe Biden in 2016 and claiming everything that came after that was an attempt to cover his tracks and obstruct Congress.
They warned Senators that Trump's behavior was part of a pattern, once again, using his own words against him.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: Then I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. MURRAY: And they cautioned of the consequences if Congress fails to intervene.
SCHIFF: Do you think if we do nothing it's going to stop now.
MURRAY: Senators who are supposed to listen quietly to the lengthy proceedings have taken to passing notes, whispering to their neighbors and reading books. At least one senator snuck in a cell phone.
But at points, they fell silent. Like when lead impeachment manager, Adam Schiff, revealed how Trump shrugged off the U.S. Intelligence assessments that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
TRUMP: My people came to me, Dan Coats came to and some others; they said they think its Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be.
SCHIFF: This is just the most incredible propaganda coup because he won't read his own national security staff talking points but he will read the Kremlin ones.
MURRAY: Instead Schiff argued, Trump has bought in to the debunk theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the last election, setting the stage for the latest scandal to engulf the White House.
SCHIFF: The buy in to that propaganda meant that Ukraine wasn't going to get money to fight the Russians. I mean that's one hell of a Russian intelligence coup.
MURRAY: A hush fell over the room once again as the late Senator John McCain's voice filled the chamber.
[05:05:00]
JOHN MCCAIN (R), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Putin also sees, here's this beautiful and large and magnificent country called Ukraine.
SCHIFF: Senator McCain advised that this is a chess match, reminiscent of the Cold War and we need to realize that and act accordingly.
He was, of course, absolutely right.
MURRAY: Saturday the president's defenders get their shot on the Senate floor. Democrats try to anticipate their response.
SCHIFF: Now, you'll also hear the defense -- the president said there was no quid pro quo.
This is a well known principle of criminal law, that if the defendant says he didn't do it, he couldn't have done it. That doesn't hold up in any court in the land. It shouldn't hold up here.
MURRAY: And they urged senators to set party allegiance aside as they judge the president's conduct. SCHIFF: Let's imagine it wasn't Joe Biden, let's imagine it was any
one of us, let's imagine the most powerful person in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into one of us. It shouldn't matter that it was Joe Biden, because I'll tell you something the next time it just may be you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MURRAY: Sara Murray, CNN, Washington.
PAUL: Let's talk about this with Tim Naftali, former director of the Nixon Presidential Library, Errol Louis, political anchor Spectrum News, and Michael Moore, former U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia.
Gentlemen, good to see you this early this morning. Thank you for waking up so early, we appreciate it.
Michael, I want to start with you, because Michael Zeldin said last hour that so far, even without the rebuttal, because he can't really make a final determination without that, the Democrat's case is sufficient. Do you believe that to be the case? And if so, what is the first thing that the Republicans have to come out of the gate with?
MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA: Yes, I think they've proven their case and sort of done it masterfully. They were steady, they ere unemotional for -- for most of the time talking about the facts and where the evidence was.
And they really tossed back to the Senate to say are you going to seed your authority when it comes to this obstruction count to be able to ever question an executive branch employee in perpetuity, I mean? The next president, are you going -- if they just say I'm not coming in, will that be enough.
So, they've -- they've talked about the facts of this case, they've talked about what the meaning is going forward, they've talked about the standards for impeachment and I think they've proven a case.
I am -- I'm stunned actually that you've got some Republican Senators coming on after the fact talking about the weakness of the evidence. I felt a little bit like I was watching the Titanic and Trump's taking us into an iceberg and these -- sort of the aristocracy of the Senate Republicans are running for the life boats to save their own seat while the res of us could go down with the ship.
And I -- I -- it tells me there's a little bit of a -- of panic maybe in some of the moderate Senate Republicans as they've listened to exactly what the evidence was, just like you previewed a minute ago with McCain's statement, when they play back Lindsey Graham's statement from years back. The evidence is there, they're just going to have to try to nullify it if they're not going to vote -- vote to convict.
PAUL: Errol, Senator Joe Manchin told Dana Bash that he could he potentially vote say one way on Article 1 and another way on Article 2. Do you see some split decisions in the future here?
ERROL LOUIS, POLITICAL ANCHOR FOR SPECTRUM NEWS: Well I think for political reasons, when you've got moderate Senate Republicans who are facing tough re-election challenges and they've got to try and create some kind of impression that they're not going to march in lockstep with the White House, that's one easy way to do it, is to say, look, I think yes he wasn't good at getting documents over the House Impeachment Inquiry, but on the other hand I don't think he abused his power, or -- or vice versa.
And it's a purely political split. You can look at -- to somebody like a Susan Collins from Maine, who's -- you know -- currently not only in a lot of political trouble, they're running ads against her and she's considered the most unpopular senator in the whole of the United States. Well yes, she's going to have say something and that's one easy way to do it.
PAUL: Alrighty. Dana Bash talked earlier this week to -- to Senator Angus King and he made the argument that this isn't just about punishment, this is about prevention. Let's listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): The question really is, did -- not did you do something bad you should be punished for, but is it likely you would do it again? In other words, it's not punishment it's prevention. And the -- the key word here is remorse. The president hasn't expressed a scintilla of remorse that he did anything --
DANA BASH, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: But would that matter?
KING: Well, it matters because that says the only way to prevent him doing it again is to remove him from office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: So even, you know Tim, President Clinton apologized for his actions back during his impeachment. How does remorse matter? Maybe in the Senate versus in the public opinion?
TIM NAFTALI, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY: Well, I think -- I think remorse matters, but more importantly a course correction matters and I think Senator King is getting to something, it's sounding really important. A number of people argue, you know, the House Democrats knew from the beginning they couldn't get 67 senators. Why bother going ahead with impeachment?
[05:10:00]
Well, I'll tell you why. It's because you want to make doing this kind - making this kind of foreign policy using our national security structure to further your own personal interest. You want to make that painful for a president, this one and the future president. If you do not assign a cost to it, you're saying you can do it. And so, the president up to now hasn't even shown any recognition of the fact that he mishandled at the very least the management of our relations with President Zelensky of Ukraine at the very least. It really was an abuse of power, but at the very least he should admit that he mishandled it. He hasn't. And the concern I think moderates have is that if the president doesn't show some remorse he is going to do this again not just with Ukraine but China, Russia, and any other country that can give him dirt on his political opponents.
PAUL: Errol, is that an argument that will reverberate as we head into 2020 with voters do you think?
LOUIS: Well yes. The polls suggest that it's already - it's already solid with voters. Voters do not want this. Voters are clear that they want to have elections that are untainted by this kind of foreign interference. I mean, it really is a matter just as Tim said that by saying that the phone call as perfect, not that the phone call was, you know, unfortunate and won't be repeated, misunderstood, mischaracterized and so forth, but because he's holding - he, the president, is holding everyone to this standard of it has to be considered perfect, it has to be considered perfectly OK, I think we're going to hear that from his legal team by the way. They're being held to that very, very high standard, very hard standard. And it's one that voters have said overwhelmingly the they object. I am not sure what the political prospects for the president are, but it's not - he's not going to get reelected because he did this, because he committed these actions, and because he got impeached.
PAUL: Good point. Senator Richard Blumenthal on the Judiciary Committee talked to Erin Burnett, and he was asked about, you know, what stood out to him in the House manager's presentation, particularly regarding article I, the abuse of power. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): What was so striking to me is the graphic detail, the wealth of messages and phone calls, the breadth of this conspiracy, how many people involved, how many messages, and how much evidence there still is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: So those text messages, those videos of people like Rudy Giuliani and President Trump himself and Attorney General Barr, Michael, is that enough to argue that without needing the witnesses?
MOORE: Yes and no, and really because - yes because it's ultimately the Senate that's going to make a decision and they could look at the evidence. We're not really in the court of law, don't have the same evidentiary rules, but the fact of the matter is they've gotten their evidence in pretty much through their statements, through the opening statements that were made, but nothing compares to having the testimony of a live witness.
And I think the - sort of the peak of the precipice that the Republicans are on right now is trying to make a decision about if we vote no witnesses and we make it look like it really is a sham, if we vote witnesses what are we going to have and where are we going to go and how much more might come out? And the question today is what - if this - if the conduct that we've already heard about, we heard through the opening statements, that we've seen, and that the president has admitted - I mean, we've lost that maybe in some of the discussions about impeachment, but he has admitted the conduct.
They're not challenging that. They're talking about process. If what has been admitted to is not sufficient for impeachment, then what in the world in the future ever would be? They already - the Republicans take the stand that the president can't be charged with a crime. Now they want to say that he's got unfettered access and unfettered discretion and he could just stunt his nose at Congress. He can give a blanket to executive order to not cooperate in any investigation, even our congressional oversight responsibilities. What's left? And so, that's - I think that's the choice they're going to have to make about the institution going forward.
PAUL: Tim - Tim, I only have a couple of seconds, but if witnesses aren't allowed, if the public doesn't think this was transparent, who's to blame for that? At the end of the day who will the public blame?
NAFTALI: Well I don't know who the public will blame, but the evidence so far is that they should blame the president. This is unprecedented. No previous president in an impeachment crisis has put up a solid, complete stonewall. And if you let that - if you allow that to happen, then impeachment is really removed as a remedy in our constitutional system.
PAUL: OK. Tim, Errol, Michael, do stay with us. Always appreciate you being here. We're going to be previewing the president's defense strategy, though, in a moment. We want your thoughts on that.
BLACKWELL: Caught on tape. New audio appears to be President Trump saying "take her out", demanding the firing of former Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
[05:15:00]
PAUL: And the deadly coronavirus is spreading and it's spreading fast. Last night another possible case was announced here in the U.S.. We're going to tell you where that is and the warnings that are coming from health officials now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: Well President Trump is not denying that it's his voice caught on a new audio tape form 2018. It's just released where he appears to demand the firing of then Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. The audio was given to ABC News by the attorney for Rudy Giuliani's indicted associate, Lev Parnas. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEV PARNAS, ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI: The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration. TRUMP: What the ambassador to the Ukraine?
PARNAS: Eyes. She's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached. Just wait. It's incredible.
TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out, OK? Do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[05:20:00]
PAUL: So here's President Trump on Fox News responding to that newly released tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I wouldn't have been saying that. I probably would have said it was Rudy there or somebody but I make no bones about it. I want to have ambassadors. I have every right. I want ambassadors that are chosen by me. I have a right to hire and fire ambassadors.
I don't know, I didn't hear this but if they hadn't ...
UNKNOWN: (Inaudible).
TRUMP: It -- I will tell you right now I feel strongly that this is somebody that shouldn't be with us. She wasn't popular even in the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: And remember, President Trump denies knowing Lev Parnas, despite the new audio and multiple pictures and videos of the two men together. And we know in just couple of hours President Trump's legal team is starting to present its full case to the Senate.
BLACKWELL: Jay Sekulow, a member of that team says they prepare to change the Democrats case. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: And we're going to put on, I believe, a -- without question a compelling case. As I said we're going to do -- we have two goals; we're going to refute the allegations that they've made and we're going to put on a formative case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: All right, the panel is back. Michael Moore, Errol Louis, Tim Naftali; thanks for staying with us.
Michael, I'm going to start with you. Jay Sekulow also said that this is going to be, today at least, coming attractions. A preview of what's coming. So let's split this question into two parts. I'm going to give the first part to you.
MOORE: Sure.
BLACKWELL: What do you expect and what is the bar inside the chamber for the 100 senators?
MOORE: Well, at the outset I think he's going to come out and lay a roadmap for what to expect next week. I mean they know that a lot of people are (ph) watching and this is a play to the public on the TV shows during the impeachment hearings and so he's going to give a road map for what to come. Here's more to come Monday and Tuesday as they move forward.
And I think he'll do a little bit of attack on the Biden's. I think that's a fool's errand but that's likely what he'll do. And I think they'll continue to attack the process. And when you don't have the facts and you don't have the law and you have your legal team is essentially made up of wishy-washy constitutional professors or lawyers who've taken different positions about process in the past and have got their credibility for all intents and purposes and all you can do is attack the process. So I think that's probably what today is.
BLACKWELL: All right. Errol, let's look at this same question outside the chamber; the American people and of course the president, what's the bar for his team?
LOUIS: Well, it's a pretty low bar actually and it's a television bar. You know I think the reason they're going to just show up briefly today and then try to sort of make their case later in the week is that they're going to really be trying to deliver talking points to give those senators and to give Trump supporters something they can hang on to.
If you look at the seven page refutation that was issued by Cipollone and Sekulow just last week, they say that the entire impeachment is unconstitutional. That the entire thing has no legal meaning, has no legal standing and is a violation of the Constitution.
That's a very tough and somewhat fanciful case to make but they're going to say it and they're going to say it again and again and again with force and conviction and try and sell it in such a way that the political supporters of the president will have something that they can hang their hat on or something that they can kind of repeat and see if they can make it stick.
BLACKWELL: Yes, Tim, you know we got a bit of this at the beginning of the week in the debate over the rules, the president's team will come forward and say not only is this not impeachable, that he did nothing wrong. Now we've seen Republicans come out to the mics at every break before and after the case from the House managers.
Talk about the position it puts those -- those senators in. You talked a bit about remorse but in comparison to the Clinton impeachment trial, there was remorse there. So the Democrats then could criticize the president. President Trump is having none of that. NAFTALI: Well, no serious legislator -- sorry no serious senator believes the president did nothing wrong. If he didn't do anything wrong we wouldn't -- the country wouldn't be in the position it is now. The serious senators are those saying he did something wrong but it's not impeachable.
The ones who take the position who accept that White House talking point that he did nothing wrong have the hardest hill to climb because the evidence is clear. It's there. The public should -- I would say the public should understand one thing, the demand or request for witnesses, more witnesses -- for witnesses and more documents, that's not because the case given by the House is week.
It's because you want to deepen and broaden the case to make it even more understandable to the American public. There is -- there is already a strong case and the senators who've taken notice, who've done their homework, they understand that.
BLACKWELL: And Michael, part of the job here (ph) is to do nothing that would sway or persuade four republican Senators to join with the Democrats to vote for additional witnesses or more evidence. Here's chairman Schiff making the case that those witnesses are necessary.
[05:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): How long is too long to have a fair trial, fair to the president and fair to the American people? The American people do not agree on much, but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth and certainly not because it took a backseat to expediency.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
BLACKWELL: Now Michael, a major portion of the argument from Democrats in the House on why they didn't go through the courts to follow - to get some of these documents and the witnesses was expediency, and that's what we're hearing from Republicans. On which side of the line do you fall on that?
MOORE: I thought that was one of the most compelling parts of his argument, and that was talking about how you cannot let the executive control the timing of the process because we've got to think forward. You know, we saw a little bit of this if you think back - they made the second (ph) argument about timing during the confirmation and the nomination rather of Merrick Garland. Fill a time (ph), let the time run out. But here what the House is saying is look, we've got an election coming up. We've got to stop this. And we can't let the president come in, give a blanket order, and make us go wide through the court system for four years.
If you do that, then you may as well take an exacto knife and cut out the part of the Constitution that talks about impeachment. It talks about the constitutional authority to do that. So I thought that was a great argument to make that if you're going to insist that the House go through the process of subpoenaing these people and letting the president deny and going all the way up the appellate chain, then you've gutted us and you've neutered us going forward. And that to me needed explaining, and I think it probably was a point to push back on some of the indoctrination that we're hearing is going on during the Republican lunches where the Republican senators are being coached about, oh, this is going to take so long, this is what's going to happen. Don't let this drag out any further, and that needed to happen and be a pushback not only to the Republican senators who might be on the fence, those four that we've been talking about -
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKWELL: Yes.
MOORE: -- but also to the American people who've questioned it. The evidence is there. There's no question at this point in my mind that they've proven their case. There's questions going forward to expand it.
BLACKWELL: Errol, let me ask you about this NPR report who asked Secretary Pompeo about U.S. policy in Ukraine and why he hadn't offered a full throated support for the former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Here's what she said happened after a Pompeo aide abruptly ended their interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
KELLY: I was taken to the Secretary's private living room where he was waiting, and where he shouted at me for about the same amount of time as the interview itself had lasted. He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine. He asked, "do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He used the F-word in that sentence and many others. He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map. I said yes. He called out for his aides to bring him a map of the world with no writing, no countries marked. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away. He said people will hear about this, and then he turned and said he had things to do, and I thanked him again for his time and left.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
BLACKWELL: Errol, on its own it's a striking vignette of what happened here with the secretary, but on the eve of the case that the president's lawyers will make to say do you think American care about Ukraine seems to undercut some of the major points that his team would likely present.
LOUIS: That's right. Look, it sounds like the pressure is getting to some of the president's men, and you know, keep in mind that Secretary Pompeo is a long-time member of Congress. He's a politician. He understands what the public does and does not react to, and I suspect that might be part of his political subconscious sort of poking through and letting him and all of us know that, yes, the public does care about this. If they - if they didn't care, we wouldn't see the ratings that we're seeing. We wouldn't see the pollsters - the reaction that the pollsters are picking up. We wouldn't see the questions that come up incessantly on the campaign trail. And of course every news organization in the country is now focused on this. So Secretary Pompeo, you know, I understand him being upset, and I understand him maybe wanting to scream at a reporter a little bit, but you know, you can't - you might as well scream at the waves for the tide coming in. This is news. This is important. The whole world now knows where Ukraine is, and he's got nobody to blame but himself if he now finds himself on the wrong side of that question.
BLACKWELL: Well CNN reached out to the State Department to get a response from the secretary's office on this account. We've not received a response. Errol Louis, Michael Moore, Tim Naftali, thank you all.
NAFTALI: Thank you.
[05:30:00] PAUL: It seems the deadly coronavirus is spreading. New cases have been confirmed this morning, and there's another possible case here in the U.S. We're going to show you what China is doing to try to stop the spread of the virus.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[05:34:20]
BLACKWELL: More people are dying as health officials around the world are now racing to stop the spread of this deadly coronavirus. Authorities say 41 people have died in more than 1,300 are infected with this respiratory illness.
PAUL: Yes, so far there are two cases that have been confirmed in the U.S., a man in Seattle and a woman in Chicago. And last night Colorado's Department of Health it's investigating a possible case.
BLACKWELL: And despite the growing number of cases, the World Health Organization has not declared the outbreak a global health emergency.
PAUL: CNN Chief Medical Health Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta has more for us.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL HEALTH CORRESPONDENT: One of the questions we get often is how similar is this to SARS, and it's worth pointing out that this is the same family of viruses, this new virus and the SARS virus. You can take a look at there, that's the coronavirus. It's named that because corona is crown and you can see that has a crown.
[05:35:00]
What we know is that sometime in December the virus started spreading from animals to humans. We knew that that was happening, and then we also learned that it was spreading human-to-human. That's what really got the public health community's attention on this, and what we now know is that this is spreading human-to-human fourth generation, which is exactly what it sounds like. Someone spreads it to someone else, they spread it to several more people and so on and so on.
And that's where the spread and the concern about this becoming more widespread really comes from. Now when you look at a pathogen like this - take a quick look at this box - there's two things that matter really. How quickly is spreads, what I was just talking about, and then how deadly it is. If it's not that deadly, doesn't spread that much, that would put you in the A box. The concern is the worst case scenario is that this goes into the D box there, highly transmissible and highly lethal as well.
So far the World Health Organization says we're not going to declare this as you know an emergency of international concern. Specifically they said that it is an emergency in China, but it's not yet becoming a global health emergency. It may yet become one.
Three reasons they really gave, one is that it's still too early. We're only a month into this. Keep that in mind. They did log China's containment efforts and they said that they're going to reconvene in 10 days.
As far as the containment efforts, I mean, it's chaos as you've probably seen now in at least in this area around Wuhan. Tens of millions of people who are on lockdown, meaning they're not allowing vehicles in or vehicles to go out. This is a - it's a very strong policy. It's an aggressive policy. It's typically a policy that is done later in stages of an outbreak as opposed to this early, and it's unclear whether China's just being very aggressive or whether they are dealing with data that we are not yet familiar with because it is an aggressive policy over there. They're also recommending everyone wear masks, for example, in Wuhan.
And just a quick tidbit I'll tell you, the masks as you might imagine are not going to stop viral particles from getting into your nose and your mouth. It can get through the mask or around the mask. What they really do more than anything else as I've seen covering these stories is that they prevent you from touching your nose and your mouth, which is also one of the most common ways this virus is transmitted. As we get more details we'll certainly bring it to you.
BLACKWELL: Sanjay, thank you. Let's go to Turkey now and this massive earthquake. Buildings have collapsed. Dozens of people are dead. Thousands hurt. We'll get you the latest on the desperate search for survivors next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[05:42:21]
BLACKWELL: This is developing out of Eastern Turkey. 22 people have died in this powerful earthquake. Officials say the 6.7 magnitude quake hit late last night.
PAUL: Rescue crews pulled at least 30 people from the collapsed building, but more than 20 are still trapped in the rubble, and more than 1,000 are in hospital with serious injuries.
BLACKWELL: Supreme Court Justice or Chief Justice John Roberts's biggest moment this week was when he scolded both the House managers and the defense team after a tense exchange. PAUL: And I spoke with Joan Biskupic, CNN Supreme Court Analyst and
author of "The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts". I talked to her about his significance in this impeachment trial.
JOAN BISKIPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: OK, so right now we've had several amendments that would have given the chief a little bit more authority, and the Senate has rejected them, and there are - you know, could the chief justice's presiding officer have more authority? Not under the Senate rules as they stand now.
Now again, any kind of motion could be made at some point, but under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent and the current Supreme Court rules, it is the Senate - the Senate that has the sole power to decide what happens in an impeachment trial, so he could toss it back.
Now there is some - there is some maneuvering room here. The Senate rules also saying in questions of relevance and materiality of certain evidence the Chief Justice could make a determination, but as I said, he - the Senate could then overturn him. I think that plenty of Democrats right now would want the Chief Justice to intervene in some way to ensure a fair trial, so perhaps ensure that someone like John Bolton, President Trump's former National Security Advisor, is called to testify.
But knowing what I know about - knowing what I know about John Roberts, his reserve, his caution, he does not want to do something that is determinative here because he knows this is in the Senate's hands, but you know this is - we're only about halfway through or maybe not even halfway through and a lot more had to unfold, and he might just be pressed into a larger role than keeping senators from being petty during their - pardon me.
Keeping the House managers and the lawyers for President Trump from being petty during their arguments. John Roberts is there to make sure Senate procedures are enforced, to make sure decorum is enforced as we saw him do one night last week. He's not there to determine Donald Trump Trump's fate, but you're right, some people might think why couldn't he have interceded, why couldn't he have made sure that this trial was fair, why couldn't he have ordered witnesses.
[05:45:00]
As I'm sure he knows more than anyone, that is the Senate's responsibility and even if he makes some determinations of the relevance of evidence, which he can under Senate rules, he can be overturned by a majority of the Senate.
PAUL: OK. You mentioned one particular heated moment; I think I know which one that is. I think I just happen to have that video for us to discuss. Let's take a look at what happened on Wednesday.
BISKUPIC: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NADLER: Either you want the truth or you -- and you must permit the witnesses or you want a shameful cover-up. History will judge and so will the Electorate.
PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you for the way you've addressed this body. You're not in charge here.
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE : I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: Listen, we're in the early stages of this, how confident are you that Chief Justice Roberts can -- can insert some decorum here and kind of pull that thread a little tighter to keep things in check.
BISKUPIC: I think that's probably the easier part because all the senators are sitting in their desk, you know not looking at any devices, listening. And I think we're going to -- I think it's sort of setup in a very scripted way so that he will be able to do it.
And after that incident, which came around 1:00 am Wednesday; lawyers on both sides said, you know, that they were trying to keep it in check. The senators themselves said that that was an important reminder to everyone. So I think those are the kinds of things that the Chief will be watching to make sure that decorum, etiquette if you will, that they're both maintained.
The tougher one will be if suddenly one of the House managers or a senator or a lawyer for President Trump wants some sort of ruling from the -- the Chief, something that's substantive.
And I think in that case he would toss it to the full Senate rather than do something that could, as I say, actually determine how President Donald Trump come out of this.
PAUL: Joan, thank you so much. Court room drama in the Harvey Weinstein trial. We'll tell you about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[05:52:00]
PAUL: Opening statements began this week in the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault case, and at least 100 women have publically accused the disgraced media mogul of sexual abuse, including the Sopranos actress, Annabella Sciorra.
BLACKWELL: She testified in vivid detail about the night she says Weinstein raped her. CNN's Jean Casarez has the week in review.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Annabella Sciorra is still a working actress. She testified for the prosecution that she met Harvey Weinstein in the early 90s. He wanted her to appear in one of his motion pictures. She did. She testified nothing happened, but then in the winter months of '93, '94 she was at a Miramax party in New York City because she was in that circle at that point. Harvey Weinstein volunteered to take her home along with his driver. She agreed. They dropped her off.
She went up, got ready for bed. About 30 minutes later there's a knock on her apartment door. Her apartment is 17 floors up. It's a doorman building. She said she opened the door in her nightgown. There was Harvey Weinstein.
She said that he forced his way in. He went from room-to-room seemingly to see if anybody else was there. She said he started to unbutton his shirt. She said, "I don't want this." She testified he forced her into her bedroom, threw her on her bed, put her hands above her head so she couldn't fight him, and she testified to a very violent rape.
She said later on in 1994 she was in London shooting another motion picture and that Weinstein began to harass her so much so she had to change apartments in the middle of the night where he wouldn't know where she was. The defense focused in that she remained in contact socially with Weinstein at various functions, allowed someone to give Weinstein to give her cell phone number several years later, and even agreed to appear in a motion picture, Copland, that Harvey Weinstein was producing. Rosie Perez was another witness who testified that she was a very close friend of Annabella Sciorra, and that Annabella had told her in '93, '94 winter months that something had happened to her. She thought she was raped. She went on to say that later on she figured out herself that it was Harvey Weinstein and that Annabella admitted it.
On cross examination, this was a last-minute witness because of the attorneys arguing and finally deciding the defense focused in that Rosie Perez's testimony on Friday was an awful to precisely like Annabella Sciorra's testimony the day before. And they asked her did you watch the news last night. She said no, she did not. Finally the prosecution called on Friday. Barbara Ziv, forensic psychiatrist, as their expert witness. She testified to the jury about rape myths. I interviewed Barbara Ziv earlier this year general questions about that issue.
[05:55:00]
Here's what she said.
BARBARA ZIV, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: Probably 90 percent of sexual assaults are unreported. Individuals - many women and men who have been sexually assaulted want it to go away.
CASAREZ: The defense is saying that they have dozens and dozens and dozens of emails from these women that are going to testify to show that the relationships between Harvey Weinstein and them were consensual. Forensic expert, Barbara Ziv, testified to the jury that evidence of consent in a relationship comes before the alleged assault, not after. Jean Casarez, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLACKWELL: Jean, thanks. Special coverage of the impeachment of Donald Trump continues with John Berman and Alisyn Camerota.
PAUL: We'll see you tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:00:00]
