Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Top Dems: Reveal Intel That Russia Hack Swayed Vote; Trump Slams CIA Over Claims Russia Hack Swayed Vote; Spicer: RNC Was Not Hacked During Election; Admitted Gunman In Confession: "I Had To Do It"l Video Shows Church Massacre Suspect With Gun; U.S. To Tend As Many As 200 More Troops To Syria; Trump Meets Today With CIA Pick At Army-Navy Game; Trump: No Trump Cabinet Post For Rudy Giuliani; Giraffes At High Risk Of Extinction. Aired Noon-1p ET

Aired December 10, 2016 - 12:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN GUEST ANCHOR: -- that any country could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core. It's imperative that our intelligence community turns over any relevant information so that Congress conduct a full investigation."

And Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid is blaming FBI Director James Comey, calling him, quote, "The new J. Edgar Hoover. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR HARRY REID (D), SENATE MINORITY LEADER (via telephone): The FBI had this material for a long time, but when he, Comey, who is, of course, a Republican, refused to divulge this information regarding Russia and the presidential election. He violated the orders of the attorney general, president, and good taste by getting involved in that, but he would not let well enough alone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Meantime, the Trump transition team issued this defiant statement discrediting not just these claims but the entire CIA. Listen to this, quote, "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and make America great again."

Meantime, President Obama is ordering a full review to investigate whether Russian hacking affected the elections outcome and he wants that done before January 20th, the day of Trump's inauguration. A spokesman for the kremlin tells CNN there is no evidence that Russia hacked Democratic groups.

Let's talk more about this with CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott. Elise, obviously the CIA has not publicly commented on the matter, but you have your sources. What are you hearing about this evidence? How strong is this evidence?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's going to fit in, Boris, to this investigation that President Obama has called for. It's that Russia tried perhaps to look into meddling in the election. The charge is that Russia tried to meddle. They might have tried to influence the election on behalf of Donald Trump.

Not that they actually affected, it because if you remember, when all these states, some 40 or more states had asked for election help, election officials, DHS officials, tried to assure the American public that even if Russia was trying to meddle, it wouldn't be able to actually affect the outcome.

So I think the question is whether Russia was attempting to do so. I think that is why the Trump transition is taking such issue with this because they feel that there is an implication that the election was actually affected.

And you also heard Sean Spicer one of the spokesmen for the transition talked about in part some of the assessment was based on the fact that the RNC was hacked. They're charging that the RNC was not hacked.

So there is a little bit of a "he said, she said" here, but clearly, this administration feels that Russia attempted to meddle in the U.S. election as they've been doing across Eastern Europe.

And I think that this administration wants to get out what they think happened to bump it, not only to the incoming administration, but also to Congress, who is calling for investigations on both sides of the aisle.

Not just Democrats, but leading Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, two very prominent senators, say they want an investigation into what Russia might have meddled in this election.

And I also think that this is a way to give a parting shot to Russia on the way out. We understand the administration is looking at options, possible sanctions, possible cyber activities, most of them would be covert, but I don't think this is over for this administration and certainly it's going to be an issue for the next one.

SANCHEZ: Well, now the question becomes, what does anything of the administration accomplishes, what it is going to do? President Obama has 41 days to get the investigation done and he essentially hands it over to Donald Trump. So what can they achieve?

LABOTT: Well, they could -- for instance, we don't know that this is exactly what they're going to do, but President Obama could create an executive order that puts some specific sanctions -- there are already a host of sanctions on Russia, but there could be some specific sanctions related to this election meddling, election hacking.

It could be sanctions. It could be cyber activities. Now, President- elect Trump has said that he would overturn a lot of President Obama's executive orders. He's also made no secret of the fact that he wants to have better relations with Russia.

So he could pretty quickly overturn any measures that President Obama could institute. However, if there is this investigation, if there is this intel and evidence that may be made public, may be just given to Congress in the next administration, that shows that there is incontrovertible evidence that Russia was involved.

And when President Trump takes office, if he were to overturn those measures that there would be a political price to pay for that.

[12:05:03]Because as I said, not just Democrats, but Republicans are also very skeptical of Russia, very concerned that they would try to interfere in our election system and it's not going to be very easy for him, politically to overturn.

The other question is, is this an isolated incident with the intelligence community that he is charging that this intelligence was politicized about his election or is there is a wider question about whether he feels that the intelligence coming from the intelligence community is faulty.

And that is why it could set up an adversarial relationship with the intelligence agencies that are not going to be just under his command but are going to be informing him to make these monumental national security decisions.

SANCHEZ: So many angles and so many questions still left to answer. Elise Labott, thank you so much for helping us break it all down.

The Republican National Committee is launching its own attack against these claims that Russia intervened in the U.S. election to help Trump and the RNC was also a target.

In a heated exchange with CNN's Michael Smerconish, RNC spokesman, Sean Spicer, said that the claims of the result of personal agendas and wrong intelligence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN SPICER, RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Let me start with before the election, it was the Democrats and the media who questioned if Donald Trump, would he accept the results of this election. He won overwhelmingly, 306 electoral votes, 2,300 counties, nine of 13 battleground states.

It is now the Democrats and the media who are questioning the validity of these results. So it's amazing where we've come. But let's get back to where we are now. The report that "The Washington Post" put out that all 17 agencies agreed on the faults.

Here is what "The Washington Post" said. The report fell short of a formal assessment because minor disagreements among the agencies had some questions remaining. The CIA then refused to comment.

So let's be honest about what is going on. Then look at what "The New York Times" reported, they based that conclusion, meaning the intelligence agency, in part on another finding that the Republicans hacked the Republican National Committee's computer system in addition to their attacks, that's false.

So the intelligence is wrong. It didn't happen. We offered "The New York Times" conclusive proof that it didn't happen, they refused to look at that, they ignored it because it didn't fit the narrative.

The bottom line, Michael, is the intelligence is wrong because they're writing that the conclusion that they came to was based in part that the RNC was hacked. It wasn't hacked. We have intelligence agencies we work with that were willing to help sort this out.

They refuse today look at that because it didn't fit the narrative that "The New York Times" wanted to write. It is reprehensible what they have done. So I do question so many of these things.

One, if that is how the intelligence was based then it clearly is wrong and we're willing to offer proof to that point. Second, the report was not conclusive among the 17 intelligence agencies, they admit that.

Three, if the CIA is so convinced of this, why won't they go on the record and say that as they did with the DNC? I mean, I believe there are people in the agencies that are upset with the outcome of the election and pushing a personal agenda, but the facts don't add up.

I think that the idea that the media immediately sides with these unnamed sources is a problem. You guys are willing to run with whatever comes out as unnamed sources from unnamed agencies, and yet the CIA itself won't go on the record.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, HOST, CNN'S "SMERCONISH": Sean, come on, I am sitting here as -- first of all to your first point, to your first point, the reason that Donald Trump was questioned so often as to whether he would accept the result, if I have to remind of this is because Donald Trump himself was casting doubt before the election on whether he was going to accept the result of it.

That is why all the questions came his way. I'm not sitting here as a Democrat, I'm not sitting here as a Republican, I'm not even sitting here as an independent, I'm sitting here as an American who is so frustrated by the idea that people are suiting up in their usual jerseys on this issue, respectfully including you.

And instead of uniting against a common enemy, in this case, Putin and Russia, and being pissed at the idea he put his thumb on the scale in the election. Instead you look at the result of the election and decide we like the result of the election and therefore, we don't want to deal with this anymore.

SPICER: Wait. Just stop for a second. I'm not suiting up. I'm actually using facts. Facts that "The Washington Post" even put in there. This is what they wrote. They wrote that the 17 agencies couldn't conclude with certainty what happened. They wrote that, not me. They also wrote -- "The New York Times" wrote that the RNC had been hacked. That's false. Why is the disposition --

SMERCONISH: How do you know it's false?

SPICER: Because I work -- I work with intelligence agencies. Michael, hold on. We were willing to offer "The New York Times" inside access to know what happened. We were willing to offer them proof. They chose not to engage in that conversation. Not us. I sat there with senior folks from "The New York Times" last night and said I will bring you inside.

[12:10:00]We will give you access to certain things so that you can see that we are telling the truth that we can prove this. They chose not to engage in that conversation because it didn't fit their narrative.

Respectfully, we are the folks that are actually trying to show this. So please don't turn around and put it on me. This is what -- we are trying to work with these agencies and these reporters to get it right.

SMERCONISH: You are saying just so I'm clear --

SPICER: That's not on me.

SMERCONISH: All right. I want to understand, I want to understand facts. You are telling me that you know to a certainty that the RNC was not hacked by the Russians or anyone else and so to the extent, whether it's "The Post," "The Times," CNN, to the extent that anyone reports, including the CIA, that the RNC was hacked, Sean Spicer knows that to be a falsehood?

SPICER: I know that we have worked with intelligence agencies right now that are saying that we have not been hacked, our own systems show that we have not been hacked. I am not a forensic computer person, so I can't say it, but I know that the intelligence agencies that we are working with tell us with certainty that we haven't been hacked.

We've said it before and tried to work with these media outlets to explain that to them and show them. They have chosen not to engage in that conversation. That's not my fault, Michael. Again, look at what the reports -- if they're so certain it happened, why won't they go on the record and say it? I don't understand it. It doesn't make any sense. Go out there and say --

SMERCONISH: OK, there's an obvious answer to that, I imagine, which is to say that they don't want the Russians to know of the way in which they've been able to assemble this case. Let me move to a slightly different aspect of this --

SPICER: Hold on. That's not true. Please don't make excuses for them. They did --

SMERCONISH: I'm not making excuses for anybody.

SPICER: Hold on. Michael, they came out and said with respect to the DNC and the DNC confirmed it, OK, so I don't understand why -- there is questions on that side. We've been willing to talk to people to show it wasn't true and people are willing to ignore it.

So on the flip side, there was a difference. When it came to what happened on the DNC, and I'm just trying to get the facts out there and somehow, it's well you must be lying. You must not be accepting the fact. No, I'm actually trying to -- SMERCONISH: I didn't say that. I didn't say that to you. Sean --

SPICER: The implication is clear. Michael, hold on, with all due respect, you said that why won't we accept the facts and we're suiting up and taking our position. No, I'm actually trying to get the facts out, I'm trying to make reporters understand what is really happening and make -- actually bring them into the process.

SMERCONISH: No, I'm making a different point. I'm casting doubt on whether Sean Spicer could definitively know the answer to the question of the extent of the Russian hack and my frustration is at the idea that until this thing is fully developed already, President-elect Trump is saying move on, folks, there is nothing to see here. But I need to ask you an additional question. Speak to the point --

SPICER: Wait, Michael.

SMERCONISH: I'm also concerned, come on, I'm being fair to you, but I got to get a word in every once in a while. I'm also troubled by the idea that my president-elect, he is going to be all of our president, is already throwing under the bus the intelligence community with whom he is going to have to work on life and death matters. Wasn't that a troubling thing to do at 9:34 last night in that very --

SPICER: No. Michael, "The New York Times" in their story said they based their conclusion on the fact that the RNC was hacked. OK. If the RNC was not hacked, then that casts doubt on their conclusions. I don't understand why this is that difficult to understand. If you are basing something --

SMERCONISH: OK, regardless of whether the RNC was hacked and that would be a big and new development, I think we know to a certainty, given Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz that the DNC was hacked. Why aren't we, as Americans, upset about the fact that a foreign hostile actor, apparently, put its thumb on the scale in our election and why doesn't Donald Trump want to get to the bottom of that as he takes office? That's the issue.

SPICER: OK. There is a couple things, one is I am outraged, I don't think any foreign entity, any individual --

SMERCONISH: Why don't you say that and why didn't Trump say that last night, that is what I haven't heard.

SPICER: I said it, let me take yes for an answer. I said it, I don't think Donald Trump thinks, anyone thinks they should be interfering with the U.S. elections, I said it. Now get to the next thing, what proof does anyone have that they affected the outcome, I heard zero.

Show me what facts have actually shown that anything undermined that election. Donald Trump won with 306 electoral votes, 2,300 counties, 362 million Americans voted for him, what proof do you have or anyone have that any of this affected the outcome of this election.

[12:15:03]SMERCONISH: I'm just an American who is trying to discern all that I'm reporting on and reading.

SPICER: Then answer the question, Michael, you are asking me, show me what -- give me one fact that an outcome was changed.

SMERCONISH: Ask Debbie -- I can't say that it impacted the ultimate outcome, that it took place go ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

SPICER: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: To be continued I appreciate you being here, I really do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Just a friendly Saturday morning conversation. Our national security experts will join us to talk about all of this. Who can we believe here? We'll discuss when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Before the break, we heard RNC communications director, Sean Spicer, say if Russia interfered with U.S. elections it did not help Donald Trump win the presidency. Sources at the CIA, though, say they have evidence that Russia did interfere and now the president is launching a full investigation.

Let's talk about this more with CNN intelligence and security analyst, Bob Baer, also a former CIA operative, and CNN contributor, Michael Weiss, a former fellow at the Institute of Modern Russia and a senior editor at "The Daily Beast."

Bob, first to you, how strong do you feel this evidence is? Trump likened it to the WMD reports before invasion of Iraq. What have you heard about what investigators are actually looking at?

BOB BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST (via telephone): What they're looking at is forensics and that's the only way you can approach this. There is just not good enough information about what the KGB does in this country and what it doesn't.

I can't imagine the CIA is going on the record saying there was Russian interference without the forensics. Otherwise, that agency is completely doomed and this is politically motivated.

So I'll come back to this. We need to see the forensics to determine whether Russians were -- I mean, you know, my personal opinion doesn't matter here, but the evidence does.

SANCHEZ: Now, Michael, do you -- some argue that a president should be skeptical of all the findings from an intelligence organization, we saw what happened with WMD in Iraq, but this fits a profile that is common to Vladimir Putin doesn't it?

[12:20:09]MICHAEL WEISS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Of course, he's been influencing elections all throughout Europe. His foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, gave an interview with Christiane Amanpour, where he rather playfully suggested, well, look, we never denied that we did this, but you have to prove it for it to be so.

Putin himself, of course, has denied it personally. It's not just the unprecedented nature of all that I think 17 separate U.S. intelligence agencies come out and prove that the providence of the Wikileaks hacks came from Russian hackers.

But they were very specific, too, to say look, it wasn't just one organ of Russian security services it was two. It was the FSB, their domestic intelligence wing and it was the GRU, their military intelligence wing.

And these two organs did it independently of each other and unbeknownst to one another. It was the rivalry between the two that led to the discovery of the hacks in the first place.

That's a level of specificity I think that goes beyond whether Saddam Hussein maybe moving chemical weapons around in Iraq. It relies mostly on digital forensics as Bob was saying not on speculation or human intelligence.

SANCHEZ: Michael, I'm curious to hear how you see this playing out because any executive action that Obama imposes, Trump can simply undo and there are actually reports that the administration for months has been reluctant to punish Russia for this. Is anything that Obama does now too little too late? Is Putin just going to have his way?

WEISS: It's too little too late, but even looking beyond that, in the imagination, not just of many Democrats who feel they were cheated of the election, but the broader electorate, the American electorate, we're now in a situation where the Russian government may be in possession of what is known as compromising material on the incoming U.S. president and his team, on the Republican Party at large.

That means for the next four years, any U.S. dealings with Russia, any trade deals, the talk of sanctions, resolution of the war in Syria, Ukraine is going to be colored by the fact that maybe Vladimir Putin is sitting on something that is hugely scandalous and embarrassing to Donald Trump.

That is unprecedented in the history of the United States that would be an intelligence breech. Probably even eclipsing that what we saw with Edward Snowden and Philip Aji (ph) several decades ago. You can ask Bob about that, he dealt in this work for many years.

SANCHEZ: Bob, from what Michael is saying, do you think that is possible? How do you see that working into foreign relations with Russia, potentially?

BAER: Well, I totally agree with Michael. This is what the Russians do, they find dirt on politicians, usually internally and use it to manipulate them. This has never happened with, in American system, there is no record of it. So this -- I mean, I think this is a constitutional crisis.

I mean, was the president legitimately elected or did the Russians tip the scale? You simply can't assume that he would have been elected anyhow, we'll never know that for sure.

And we don't know the extent of how much interference the Russians got into. But I think this is just -- it's a scandal unprecedented in American history.

SANCHEZ: Bob, you mentioned the last hour that you felt like there should potentially be another election, there should be a do over. Michael, do you agree with the idea that we're in a crisis right now, that Russia has essentially challenged American democracy in such a way that we can't rely on the election itself?

WEISS: They certainly challenged it. I'm not going to speak to whether or not we need to have another election. That would be a colossal undertaking. I spoke to Bob myself about this. He said if the United States were accused of doing this in a European country such as Germany or France, no doubt those countries would call for a new election.

Look, this is part of a trend, though. It's important not to look at this in isolation with respect to only United States. Russian security services have got up to no good all throughout Europe.

The goal here is to weaken and vitiate the Trans-Atlantic relationship and the security compact that has underwritten security since the end of World War II.

And they are succeeding to an extent that frankly three years ago, I think the American, even the average American intelligence officer would not have credited them with succeeding.

I'm talking about, you know, everywhere from obviously Ukraine, Syria and the Middle East to European countries, NATO allies such as Hungary where Russian penetration or the Czech Republic, where the Russian penetration is steering electorates.

And causing disclosure of these dirty tricks against democratically elected politicians is completely undermining any faith and credibility in the democratic order. This is a huge international crisis not just an American one.

SANCHEZ: It seems the cold war simply took a break. Michael Weiss and Bob Baer, thank you so much for your perspective.

Next, we hear the words of an alleged murderer, Dylann Roof, on trial for killing nine people at a historic African-American church.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you consider yourself a white supremacist?

DYLANN ROOF: I do consider myself a white supremacist, sure, white people are superior if that's what you mean.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Hear more of his chilling FBI interrogation next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:28:49]

SANCHEZ: The admitted gunman in the Charleston church massacre confessed with a laugh and the chilling interrogation video played in Dylann Roof's murder trial, he tells the FBI he, quote, "had to do it."

CNN's Polo Sandoval joins us in Charleston where prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty. Polo, did the video shed any light into a possible motive?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He does, Boris, at least that is what he lays out in this interrogation video. With no cameras in the courtroom, I kept my eyes on Dylann Roof while that lengthy confession footage was shown, he expressed nothing, no emotion as he heard himself tell investigators he did it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROOF: I went to the church in Charleston, and I did it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did what? Did you shoot them?

ROOF: Yes.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): The confession video is over exposed but Dylann Roof's motive is crystal clear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So your deal, is it like --

ROOF: To agitate race relations.

SANDOVAL: Seemingly consumed by a racist fury, Roof told officials he researched black on white crime on the internet during the George Zimmerman trial. It was then he started down a path toward hate crimes.

[12:30:09] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you consider yourself a white supremacist?

ROOF: I do consider myself a white supremacist, sure. White people are superior. If that is what you mean.

SANDOVAL: Church surveillance video released this week shows roof entering the house of worship in June of last year. He was inside 45 minutes. Then roof peeks his head out a Glock 45 caliber pistol in his hand. He then slowly walks out of the door of the church.

ROOF: I was in absolute awe that there was nobody out there after I had shot that many bullets. When I walked out the door, you know, I peeked out the door. I thought there was going to be somebody there ready to shoot me.

SANDOVAL: Roof was prepared to kill himself but didn't when he saw no flashing lights, he told officials. The video confession, Roof laughs occasionally and when agents tell he that he murdered nine people he appears shocked.

ROOF: There wasn't even nine people there. Are you guys lying to me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, we're not.

SANDOVAL: Dylann Roof also wrote a 2,000 word statement with photos and posted it online the afternoon of the shooting. In it Roof said, he thought black people were stupid and "Inferior to whites and violent." He goes on to say, "We have no skin heads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well, someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world and I guess that has to be me."

Charged with 33 federal counts, including hate crimes, Roof's defense team has conceded that he committed the slayings and has instead focused on trying to spare him the death penalty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANDOVAL: And I can tell you on that final note. Roof's defense does plan to offer very little argument to the government account of what took place on that unholy day here in Charleston last year. They may not even call up any witnesses but of course we'll find out that if actually does in fact happen, Boris. Here in the community you hear from people, everyone seems to agree, it's not a matter of if he will be convicted. But when he's convicted, and then the question leads to whether or not the jury will sentence him to death.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Unbelievably difficult to watch that video. It must have been incredibly painful for the victim's family members in court.

Polo Sandoval, reporting from . Thank you.

Up next, more American troops are headed to Syria as an urgent meeting in Paris is called to stop the massacre. A live report is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:35:28] SANCHEZ: The U.S. will send as many as 200 more troops into Syria. American troops will train local forces as they drive toward ISIS' self declared capital of Raqqa. A senior U.S. official tells CNN at least 50,000 ISIS fighters have been killed since the effort to take down the terror group again.

CNN International Correspondent Melissa Bell joins us now live from Paris. Melissa, what else did Secretary Kerry have to say about that crisis in Aleppo?

MELISSA BELL, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we heard from Secretary Kerry today here in Paris, he was meeting with his counterparts, nine other foreign ministers from Europe and from Arab countries. And this is the group that backed the Syrian opposition, the group that has consistently said that the Syrian opposition needs to be heard.

The Syrian opposition whose voice has grown ever fainter even as the might of Russia air power has grown louder on the ground. And this meeting took place even as Aleppo stands poised to fall, in the foreign ministers meeting here knew that. And it was a fairly forlorn John Kerry who spoke to reporters here Paris today. He knows he has very little chance of being heard. And yet, he was saying to the Moscow and to Damascus, "Look, you are in a position of strength. You are in the dominant position. Now is the time to show some grace and sit down at the negotiating table with the opposition in order to talk about the future. Here is what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The indiscriminate bombing by the regime which violates international rules of law -- of war, in many cases crimes against humanity and war crimes, needs to stop. And those who support it, those in Moscow and elsewhere who have supported it should do their utmost to bring it to a close. A meaningful ceasefire needs to be reached.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: John Kerry using a moral argument that one can only imagine will continue falling on deaf ears, Boris. And the other aspect of this is that as we listen to the secretary of state make that press conference today, one couldn't help but think it wasn't simply the Syrian opposition was in a position of weakness. Here is after all the secretary of state will be out of a job in just a few weeks time. We don't know of course who his replacement will be. But we do know, given what we know of Donald Trump's position. And it is very unlikely that his successor will continue with these sorts of meetings or indeed fighting on this kind of platform for this kind of position against Moscow.

SANCHEZ: And incredibly a difficult task ahead specially when dealing with Russia involvement in Syria.

Melissa Bell reporting from Paris, thank you.

Next, how does Donald Trump's cabinet choices play with his rural supporters, we'll talk to a Trump backer next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:41:50] SANCHEZ: Former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani will not serve in Donald Trump's incoming administration. This morning Trump sent out this tweet saying that "Rudy Giuliani, one of the finest people I know and a great mayor of New York just took himself out of consideration for state."

CNN has learned that instead Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson is now the leading candidate for the secretary of state position.

CNN's Ryan Nobles is at the site of today's army-navy game where Trump is set to attend one of the nation's most storied football rivalries. Ryan, that would be a fun place to meet with potential cabinet picks, right? Any word or we're expected meetings today?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Boris. It might be a good way to lure a potential candidate in for a meeting with the president-elect. But he's not going to meet with anyone who he is considering for a cabinet post. But people he's already selected, including the new CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, the congressman. He will be here for this game here today. And also in attendance will be Rudy Giuliani, who of course we learned this week has pulled his name out of consideration for a post in the Trump administration.

You know, CNN is reporting that Trump was told by the Trump transition that he was not going to get that secretary of state post. Now, Giuliani addressed the timing of this announcement and who could potentially get that important position this morning on Fox. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIAN, TOP TRUMP ADVISOR: I think Rex Tillerson is an excellent choice. And I think Josh Bolton. Had I been president in 2008, I probably would have appointed him as secretary of state.

So having Josh Bolton I think is superior. I think Mitt Romney, I mean I voted for him, I supported him, I thought he'd been a much better president than Barack Obama. But I do I think like Mike Huckabee does, he should apologize or at least he should what he meant by some of the comments, which hurt me greatly when I was campaigning for my friend Donald Trump.

I think actually, Donald is less troubled by it, because I didn't want to put the campaign requested that we withhold it. Plus they didn't accept it immediately. They said they wanted to keep me in the running and I said, "Well, I don't want to be." But they said they wanted to keep me in the running. So we agreed that I'll wait until you are ready. When you are ready, then we can announce it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: And as you mentioned, Boris, our Jim Acosta, reporting that Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson has moved to the top of the list of potential candidates for President-elect Trump. And that he wants to make this decision soon but that Mitt Romney is still very much in the mix. We could learn who the secretary of state is sometime this week. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Ryan, quick question for you. We know, you mentioned the incoming head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo is there with all of this about Russia, this back and forth about Russia hacking the DNC, are we expecting him to say anything at all?

NOBLES: We don't expect them to address the media or that specific latest controversy with the Trump transition here today. You know, I think Trump has made it clear. This is all about honoring the people that are in uniform today. He's going to spend half of the game on the army side line, the other half on the navy sideline. We don't expect him to take any questions from reporters. But you're right, Boris, this is a big question now for the transition and something they're going to have to address in the coming days, you can certainly expect it to come up when these confirmation hearings begin for this key cabinet posts.

[12:45:10] SANCHEZ: And definitely, quite a festive backdrop for all of this controversy.

Ryan Nobles, thank you so much.

So lots to discuss, joining me now is CNN Political Commentator, Andre Bauer who's also a Donald Trump supporter. Also with me is CNN Political Commentator, Patti Solis Doyle, who's a former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton.

Andre, let's start with you, your reaction to the news that Rudy Giuliani will not serve in the Trump administration. This is someone who stood by Donald Trump when seemingly the world turned against him. One of the first people to support him, extremely energetic supporter of Donald Trump, he was pushing for the secretary of state job by all accounts, does this surprise you?

ANDRE BAUER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It does surprise me. We know Rudy Giuliani has been as loyal as anyone has been to Donald Trump. So he is a trusted confidant, he's more than capable. You know he's America's mayor. And so I'm a big fan of Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And so I was hoping he'd actually get that cabinet post.

SANCHEZ: Now, this -- you said something really key there, loyalty. Some of the other people who have supported Donald Trump are also nowhere to be seen on this administration. Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, now Rudy Giuliani, what does this say about the president- elect?

BAUER: Well, Newt Gingrich has always said he really didn't have any, you know, wishes to serve in the cabinet. And I think he like to be in an advisory role. He's one of the smartest guys in politics today. I revered Newt Gingrich. I think he'd been an asset to any cabinet post. But I don't think he actually wants to serve in that capacity.

SANCHEZ: And how about Chris Christie?

BAUER: Chris Christie, you know, I don't know what the situation is there. I've never met Chris Christie. I don't actually have a personal relationship with him, another talented individual, but looks like he's just going to serve out his term as governor and then quite possibly maybe come in the cabinet at a later date.

SANCHEZ: A lot of questions about Jared Kushner's father and his relationship with Chris Christie on whether or not that affected that.

But Patti, let me get to you. Your reaction to the news that Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson is now Trump's leading candidate to become secretary of state. He does have experience with foreign leaders, including Russia's Vladimir Putin. But there is no official government or diplomatic experience, does that concern you? PATTI SOLIS DOYLE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, it does. And given today's news from the CIA that there is actual evidence that Russia, you know, put the thumb on the scale in this election for Donald Trump. Tillerson's relationship with Russia and personal relationship with Vladimir Putin concerns me very much.

And I think the transition really sort of needs to take that into account when their making their decision. But overall, I think the thing that most surprises me about Donald Trump's appointments thus far is that they're not surprising. You know, Donald ...

SANCHEZ: Not surprising.

DOYLE: Right, Donald Trump ran a campaign, a successful campaign on complete and total disruption of Washington of our institutions, of our banks, of our media. And he's basically appointing status quo nominees, you know, members of Congress, former members of Congress. He attacked Hillary Clinton on her ties with big banks and basically now he has Goldman Sachs running our economy. So I just -- what I find most surprising is that it's a very much status quo government thus far.

SANCHEZ: Andre, your response to that, that claims of draining the swamp will go unfilled, promises rather will go unfilled.

BAUER: Well, number one, I think it tells us the next four years are going to be anything but boring. I think the American people are excited. He has assembling a group of business leaders and industry icons that are second to none. I can't believe quite frankly, some of these individuals are leaving their current post to serve in a governmental capacity with the magnitude of what they're already doing. But I'm glad they're willing to sacrifice some of their business and some of their income to make America a better place to live, work and play. And hopefully, grow economic opportunity.

So I'm elated even, you know, I can go back and reference someone who'd beat me for governor, Nikki Haley, who has a unbelievable background. Our state has moved so many years forward under her leadership, you know, our economic development has been second to none. We're on fire in South Carolina. And so, the folks he's getting to come in his cabinet, I think are incredible. I don't think that it's anything like that we're filling the swamp back up. In fact that's he's bringing in the folks that are tomorrow's real leaders that will continue to move us in an area where we haven't been in many decades.

SANCHEZ: Now, Patti, I did want to ask you about Russia and this Washington Post report that followed a CNN report about potential intervention in the American election. There is some wording in that report that says that Hillary Clinton supporters were disappointed that the administration -- the Obama administration essentially sat on this evidence that Russia was hacking the election and did nothing really serious about it other than point them out in public.

I actually want to read you a quote from a Representative Adam Schiff, he's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He said that, "The administration had all the tools they needed to respond. They have the ability to impose sanctions. They have the ability to take clandestine means. The administration has decided not to utilize them in a way that would deter the Russians, and I think that's a problem." Why wouldn't the Obama administration jump on this sooner?

[12:50:14] DOYLE: Look, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, I absolutely am incredibly frustrated that the administration did not do something about this sooner. But as an American citizen, I'm outraged that the Trump transition is basically saying, "Look, there's nothing to see here." He is the president-elect of all of us. And the only appropriate response is we're going to get to the bottom of this. And if indeed the Russians, you know, actually affected our election, you know, there will be retribution for that.

SANCHEZ: Now, Andre, we heard from several national security experts telling us that it may be too little too late. But now, Obama can do nothing about Russian interference in the election. How does that make you feel?

BAUER: Well, number one, I haven't seen conclusive evidence that actually Russia was involved. If they are involved as any American, I'm concerned. I don't want them to have any ability to sway elections. I haven't seen that happen. I don't think it's true. But also, it goes to further note that Hillary Clinton's e-mails were actually tapped, his weren't maybe as a businessman, he took the necessary precautions to make sure that he had a system in place that didn't allow his e-mails to be captured.

SANCHEZ: All right, Patti Solis Doyle and Andre Bauer, thank you for spending time with us today. We'll be right back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:55:14] SANCHEZ: It is the world's tallest land mammal. And a familiar picture on the African Savanna. And it's now said to be facing possible extinction. Giraffes is now been placed on the high risk list for extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This comes after a 40 percent decline in the population over the last three decades.

I want to bring in the host of ABC's Ocean Treks, Jeff Corwin. He has done extensive research on the conservation of endangered species. So Jeff, the question is why is this happening to giraffes?

JEFF CORWIN, HOST, ABC'S "OCEAN MYSTERIES": That's a great question, Boris. This is the silent extinction. This is the extinction that is the most dangerous because it happens under the radar screen. We know that in the last 30 years, the population has decreased by 40 percent. And the question is why.

Largely, it's a result of habitat fragmentation. These are very large creatures, as you said they're up to 18 feet tall. They weigh upwards 2,600 pounds. They move and have a home range of about 100 miles per day. And eat 75 pounds of food per day. So an animal with a lot of needs, when their habitat, their home is compromised, their population pays the price.

SANCHEZ: I guess the question is for people here in the United States, so far removed from their natural habitat. You know, go through life worrying about getting your kids to school, about getting groceries, what could we do in our day to day lives to help?

CORWIN: Boris, you touch on something that's rather intriguing. You can look at that question two ways. What can we do to help and a lot of people probably say, "Well, why should I care? I mean, I like giraffes, it look nice in a zoo." But the truth is we should care very, very deeply. Because giraffes are what we call a keystone species, which means that they're so interlaced and interconnected with the habitat, when their population goes down, it's an alarm for the whole ecosystem.

Ultimately, what we need to do is protect habitat, we need to look at human incursion as human populations invade the places where the nine sub species of giraffes live, they become stressed and their populations begin to decrease.

SANCHEZ: A keystone species. Interesting and it is hard really to think about.

Jeff Corwin, thank you.

The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM begins after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Hey. It's just about 1:00 p.m. on the east coast. Thank you for joining me. I'm Boris Sanchez in for Fredricka Whitfield.

[13:00:03] We begin with the crescendo of calls for the truth, transparency and a full investigation in the claims that a Russian espionage operation helped Donald Trump win the election. Senator Chuck Schumer --