Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pompeo Blames Iran For Drone Attacks On Saudi Oil Field; Half Of Saudi Supply, Five Percent Global Production Halted; Yang Wades Into Controversy Over SNL Comic's Anti-Asian Slurs; New York Set To Ban The Sale Of Flavored E-Cigarettes; Pelosi, Schumer Urge Trump To Support Background Checks; Woman Accusing NFL Star Of Rape To Meet With NFL This Week; "Friends Forever: 25 Years Of Laughter" Airs Tonight At 9 ET. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired September 15, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:01:01] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello, again everyone. Thank you so much for joining me this Sunday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We begin with the blame game between the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Iran. Pompeo is now accusing Tehran of launching an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply, following drone strikes on Saudi Arabia's oil facility.

The attack has halted half of the kingdom's oil supply and 5 percent of global oil production. Iran has rejected Pompeo's claim, calling it baseless. And so far, the White House has not provided any evidence to support the accusation.

CNN's Senior International Correspondent, Ben Wedeman joining me right now. So, Ben, what is the latest and what is the reaction coming from that portion of the world?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, what we've heard is a lot of condemnation from various corridors in the Middle East to what happening or what happened yesterday early morning in Saudi Arabia.

There is concern, in fact, that this attack is going to have a real impact on world oil markets, although Saudi officials say that they have reserves that might last as much as 40 days.

And we've just heard that perhaps they may be getting some of their production up and running within the next few days. But to get everything back to normal, it could take weeks.

Now, as we've heard that there have been allegations that perhaps -- or suggestions that the drones or rockets that hit these two oil facilities came from Iraq. We did hear the Iraqi prime minister categorically deny to the best of his knowledge that happened, but it does appear that tensions are going to continue to rise as long as this uncertainty continues. Fred?

WHITFIELD: So, Ben, how will Saudi Arabia try to get to the bottom of the origins of this strike? Don't they have the technology, you know, the wherewithal, even the support in which to get to the bottom of this?

WEDEMAN: In theory they have the technology. Saudi Arabia has the third -- the world's third largest defense budget, and one would assume that they do, but there's also a large U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and they certainly should have the wherewithal to determine where these projectiles were fired from.

But until now, even though the Americans in the form of Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, have come out and directly pointed the finger at Iran, it appears for some reason the Saudis are somewhat more hesitant to make a direct accusation at this point.

WHITFIELD: All right. Ben Wedeman, thank you so much.

All right, many options are on the table, that's what the White House is saying in response to the attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil supply. And one of the options could include military action.

Our Jeremy Diamond is at the White House. So, Jeremy, what intelligence is the Trump administration, you know, crediting to help support Pompeo's claim that Iran has something to do with this?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, so far, Fredricka, what information they may have, they are not sharing it publicly at this point. We have not yet had any information from this administration to back up the Secretary of State's claims of direct Iranian culpability in this attack on the Saudi oil facilities. So as of yet, we're still waiting to see if this administration will provide any additional information on that.

But beyond that, of course, there is the timing of this action and the fact that it comes as President Trump is considering this possible diplomatic opening with Iran. It appears that that may have been derailed by this.

[15:05:02] But so far, what we've heard from the administration in the form of Kellyanne Conway, the President's counselor, is that, look, this doesn't help Iran's case, but it may still keep the door open.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Well, the President will always consider his options. And he has never -- we've never committed to that meeting at the United Nations General Assembly. The President just said he's looking at it. And so I'll allow the President to announce a meeting or a non-meeting.

But when you attack Saudi Arabia, as the Secretary of State has noted, they've attacked them dozens and dozens of times, you attack civilian areas critical infrastructure to indeed the global economy, global energy stability, you're not helping your case much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: As Kellyanne Conway says there, we will need to hear from the President to know whether or not this potential diplomatic opening with Iran has officially been derailed by this attack. But, so far, we have not heard from the President. He has been tweeting this morning about other matters, but we've yet to hear him weigh in on this attack on Saudi oil facilities.

We do know, however, from the U.S. officials that they stand ready to cool the possibility of any tensions and any jitters in the global oil market as a result of this attack. The administration making clear that it is prepared to tap into the U.S.'s strategic petroleum reserve if necessary.

WHITFIELD: And then Jeremy, among the options that this White House is considering, to what extent would military option -- military intervention be an option?

DIAMOND: Well, we know that this is an administration that likes to keep all options on the table, as the phrase is said and oft repeated here at the White House. And we also know that there are a number of senators, including Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of the White House and of the President's, who have already been calling for some kind of retaliation on Iranian facilities. As of yet, though, no word from the White House of whether that is an option that it is considering.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much at the White House.

I want to bring in Bob McNally. He is the head of the energy market consulting company, Rapidan. He was also an adviser to President George W. Bush during his first term. Good to see you.

So, one of your roles with President Bush was working to protect those same Saudi oil fields. Does it seem to you that the Houthis have the capability to attack this Saudi oil production to this magnitude?

ROBERT MCNALLY, PRESIDENT, RAPIDAN GROUP: Well, in this case, I'm not sure it was the Houthis. I think information is going to show that this was an incredibly precise, well done attack using means and methods that the Houthis themselves could not have gotten.

And we don't know whether this was coming out of Yemen where the Houthis could have done it, or it was coming from Southern Iraq, such as the attacks against Saudi Arabia's oil pipe lines in May were.

If it came out of Iraq, the likelihood that Iran was directly involved goes up even higher. But no, this was a sophisticated attack. They knew exactly what they were going after. The crown jewel of the Saudi oil system and the most important facility in the global oil market, I think they were successful in causing real damage, and it's no wonder the administration is considering the SPR, military options and other things.

I think this weekend is going to reveal that there was a severe blow to the global economy done by whoever did this. And I don't think Houthi rebels in Yemen by themselves could have pulled this off.

WHITFIELD: So you see this as a, you know, potentially, you know, seismic, you know, attack, but do you also see this as an attack with a lot of symbolism, knowing that this, as you say, is a crown jewel of Saudi Arabia oil production?

MCNALLY: Yes. No, it does certainly. Look, Iran is under enormous pressure. It needs relief. And as Jeremy mentioned, you folks mentioned, until Friday the President looks like he was looking at giving some relief for sanctions. The Iranians have to get relief for these sanctions. Inflation is off the charts, unemployment, et cetera.

WHITFIELD: So it sounds like you do believe that Iran had something to do with this?

MCNALLY: Oh, I have no doubt that they had something to do with it. What role they played exactly, we don't know. But Iran is basically saying to President Trump, we can hurt you at the pump in your reelection if you don't give us relief. This is a pressure tactic aimed at the United States as much as Saudi Arabia.

WHITFIELD: How long do you believe it will take to determine who is responsible for this and then what kind of response is merited?

MCNALLY: I think it's going to take -- it was probably already done inside the government. I think they have a pretty good idea. When Secretary Pompeo came out and ruled out Yemen yesterday on Twitter, that was a sign that internally they had -- that they knew who did it and I think they know how. And so I think that we're within hours to days of that information being released.

In terms of response, that's a trickier one. That's going to require talking to allies both in the region and Europe and so forth, what combination of deterrents, retaliation, et cetera. That, I think, is going to take more days to come.

[15:10:05] But I'll say the first order right now for tonight and tomorrow is, as you alluded to earlier, whether to use a strategic petroleum reserve, whether to protect the global economy against a price spike given that we've had this game changer over the weekend and a huge upward shift in geopolitical risk.

WHITFIELD: And what, in your view, would prevent a price spike?

MCNALLY: There's not much that would present it -- prevent a price spike at this point. I mean, if the administration in the next hour or to before the Asian markets opened announced a coordinated drawdown of four to five million barrels a day, then perhaps it would be muted but, no.

When you strike at the heart of the global oil economy in the market and you threaten war with Iran, which is really what this has done, and you put in place potentially a risk to the Strait of Hormuz, 17 million barrels a day, we're talking about a risk and order of magnitude of which really is going to lead to a price increase. The only question is, can it be contained be an SPR release or some such.

WHITFIELD: All right. Bob McNally, we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

MCNALLY: You bet.

WHITFIELD: All right, still ahead, presidential candidate Andrew Yang takes on racism against Asian-Americans following bigoted comments by an "SNL" cast member, why he says the country has become excessively punitive of offensive comments. That's Yang who said that.

Plus, New York taking a major step to ban flavored e-cigarettes. Governor Andrew Cuomo joins us live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:12] WHITFIELD: Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is jumping into the controversy over "Saturday Night Live's" newest cast member. On the same day, the show made history by hiring Bowen Yang as its first cast member of East Asian descent. "SNL" came under fire for another newly minted cast member, Shane Gillis, at issue, the comedian's past bigoted commands about Asians.

And while Yang says he doesn't believe Gillis should be fired, the presidential candidate did slam the comic for taking cheap shots. He told our Jake Tapper why he is willing to forgive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW YANG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, there have been a number of reactions to my call for forgiving Shane Gillis. And I've experienced a lot of anti-Asian racism throughout my upbringing and it hurts, you know, and it's something that is very real and I do think anti-Asian racial epithets are not taken as seriously as slurs against other groups.

But at the same time, bigger picture, I believe, that our country has become excessively punitive and vindictive about remarks that people find offensive or racist. And that we need to try and move beyond that if we can, particularly in the case where the person, you know, is in this case, to me, like a comedian whose words should be taken in a slightly different light.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, joining me right now to discuss, former Republican Utah Congresswoman and CNN Political Commentator, Mia Love and former Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor, and CNN Political Commentator, Andrew Gillum. Good to see you both.

ANDREW GILLUM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You too.

MIA LOVE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good to see you.

WHITFIELD: All right so, Andrew, you first. You know, Yang says his approach is not necessarily that popular with his fellow competitors, but he feels like he is making a profound, you know, statement and really demonstrating and showing that there's real disparity about insensitivities, particularly toward Asian-Americans. How is his positioning -- you know, his position enlightening people, enlightening supporters?

GILLUM: Yes, yes. Well, good to be with you, Fred. And I got to tell you, I have a great deal of respect for the approach that Mr. Yang happens to be taking here. I do think that there is a difference between where comedians go for comedic value, whether I agree with that or not is one thing.

But compare that to the open bigoted racist, sexist, misogynistic comments that we have coming from the President of the United States, there is no equivalency between the two of those. One met for comedic value and the other met as the most sinister form politics that we seen in a long time.

And so the truth is, all of us would shudder if we had to go back and be measured on the left that we may have given a comedian over one joke or another that we may have witness over our lives. I do consider that to be different than we have coming from political figures.

WHITFIELD: All right. Mia, do you see Yang, as you know, enlightening, really not just supporters, but enlightening a lot of people on the stand that he's taking?

LOVE: I think that -- first of all, I watched the clip and I found the clip to be pretty offensive. I didn't think it was funny, either. It wasn't something that I was laughing at. I don't think anybody else that was listening to it was laughing at it. So, I think that he has to -- he has to answer for some of those things.

I do believe, though, we have to -- I think we're getting a little desensitized to some of these, whether it's comedians or whoever it is. I think that if you're going to say something that is racially insensitive, you should be called out for it no matter where you are. Whether you're a parent, whether you're a, you know, a schoolteacher, whoever you are, I think you should be called out for --

WHITFIELD: And it sounds like Yang is saying called out, too--

LOVE: -- some of these comments.

WHITFIELD: -- but then at what point, you know, is everyone subjected to punitive damage.

LOVE: Yes. I mean, again, this is about the -- this is about -- I understand forgiving somebody, but I don't believe in saying, hey, I don't think he should be fired. I don't think -- I think he should hold everybody to the same standards and I think that that's what people are looking at. If you're going to call somebody out for racist comments, you should call everybody out for that. You should hold everybody to the same standards.

WHITFIELD: OK. Let's turn now to Julian Castro.

GILLUM: I'm just not going to make the -- you know, I just won't make the equivalency between what we would expect from our political leaders, or our faith leaders, or our civic leaders, and then what we get from comedy. And so the truth is that the consumers will ultimately be the judge of this, right?

I mean, if you don't like someone's comedic expression, then you don't have to patronize them at all. And so I think maybe this is a teachable moment, and maybe beyond this conversation, you will see some evolution in growth by this committee.

[15:20:00]

LOVE: I understand that. Andrew, I understand that. What I'm trying to say is that I think Americans need to hold themselves to a higher value. So, I am not going to hold myself to the same standard as, say, the President or this comedian. I hold myself to a higher standard and I think everybody else should do the same thing.

WHITFIELD: OK. We'll leave it there for now. We talk about teachable moments. How about this one for Julian Castro, perhaps, because the Democratic candidate has now lost a key endorsement this morning following his apparent questioning of Biden's age and memory at least week's debate. Texas Congressman Vicente Gonzalez explained his decision this morning to Jake Tapper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAPE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Do you stand by your endorsement of Secretary Castro?

REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ (D-TX): Well, I think at this point in time we need to narrow the field and unite as Democrats to defeat Trump in November 2020, and that's why I believe I'm moving my support to Vice President Joe Biden. I think he's certainly showed the statesmanship throughout every single debate. He's been the steady ship.

He has eight years of experience in the White House already. He had a distinguished career in the Senate. He has a story that resonates with the American people, and I clearly believe that he is the candidate that can get us past the finish line. And clearly Secretary Castro is a qualified candidate.

We have an amazing array of qualified candidates, but I think it's time to narrow the field and unite and get ready to defeat Trump in 2020.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Andrew, do you see that, you know, Julian Castro's, I guess, performance or what intimation, you know, was being made is going to cost him other endorsements, other support?

GILLUM: Well, I mean, the congressman, not in that clip, but I believe he also went on to say that he felt like what took place on the debate stage was all fair game, and the Democratic process, as we reduce ourselves to an eventual nominee. I really want to caution that's against treating Joe Biden with kid gloves every time we are on a debate stage.

If you think that that was tough or impolite, imagine what is going to happen when our nominee is eventually face with a man who has no real connection to the truth, who will say anything he thinks is going to stimulate his base on the debate stage and we've got to deal with that.

And so, I would say Vice President Biden is a mature, strong, forceful nature. And I think we ought to trust that he knows how to deal with these things when he's confronted with these kinds of challenges.

WHITFIELD: Mia?

LOVE: I found that whole thing actually pretty odd. As a member of Congress, I mean, anybody, when you are associating your endorsement with somebody, you're pretty much saying, I align with them politically, I align with them principally.

So for him to actually switch his endorsement is a big deal. And for a fellow Texan, for somebody else who is not in the same state is a big deal. I think there's more than just poll numbers that are speaking here.

I do agree, I don't think that he appreciated the performance on the debate stage. So I think that this is going to be a big problem for Castro moving forward. This is not a good move. Switching an endorsement is a big deal.

WHITFIELD: All right. Mia Love, Andrew Gillum --

GILLUM: I don't doubt that it is --

WHITFIELD: Oh, go ahead.

GILLUM: The only other point I would make is that I do think there is some hunger out there for some whittling here. People want to be able to concentrate their attention on the candidates they think they may be able to perform the best ultimately. And so I wouldn't be surprised if we see in the coming weeks some additional consolidation behind some of the front-running candidates.

WHITFIELD: Because even if you endorse, you are allowed to change your mind, right?

GILLUM: Well, you saw that happened in 2008.

LOVE: You are allowed to change your mind but you're very -- but you're very careful about who you're endorsing to begin with. And so, that's why you wait a little bit and you vet the candidates out. And so, that's why it's important for you to know exactly who you're going to endorse because switching is a big deal afterwards.

WHITFIELD: All right. Mia Love --

GILLUM: But to your point, we saw it in 2008, lots of switching that took place as that process went on between Secretary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

WHITFIELD: OK. We will leave it there for now. Andrew Gillum, Mia Love, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Good to see you.

All right, coming up, as the nation season increase in illnesses and deaths linked to vaping, New York is now taking the drastic step of banning flavored e-cigarettes. I'll ask Governor Andrew Cuomo about his emergency executive action, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:28:37] WHITFIELD: All right, New York is taking a major step amid a nationwide surge in vaping-related illnesses and deaths. The state now says it plans to ban almost all sales of flavored e-cigarettes, except for tobacco and menthol. Governor Andrew Cuomo made the announcement earlier this morning and is expected to sign an emergency executive order in the coming days.

And Governor Cuomo is joining me right now. So, Governor, good to see you. Six confirmed vaping deaths nationwide.

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): Good to be with you.

WHITFIELD: What exactly was the impetus of you wanting to make this executive order on banning almost all flavored e-cigarettes?

CUOMO: Good to be with you, Fredricka. The evidence is overwhelming and it's growing, literally daily nationwide the numbers in the hundreds. We've seen a dramatic increase in just the past few weeks in New York. People were sick by vaping. There was no dispute but that vaping is dangerous.

At a minimum, you have young people getting addicted to nicotine at a very early age, probably earlier than they did with cigarettes, believe it or not. There has been no real long-term research on these devices and what does it mean to inhale steam with chemicals deep into your lungs. And these devices also hold what they call counterfeit products that go into these devices, that there's no regulation whatsoever.

[15:30:07] It can have THC. It can have vitamin E acetate that can also do damage. And these companies are targeting young people. The flavors are cotton candy and bubble gum and gummy bears. And they're advertising on social media aimed towards young people. So, we want to ban the flavored vaping e-cigarettes --

WHITFIELD: And how soon?

CUOMO: -- that are definitely targeted to young people.

WHITFIELD: How soon would this ban take place?

CUOMO: Well, we go through -- we have a public health council that will review it and would actually have to make the decision, but about 14 days. And we want to give the shop owners some time to get the material off their shelves.

WHITFIELD: And then how concerned are you that this ban may actually enable kids and teens to turn to the black market where it would be harder to regulate, but because, as you said, a lot of these flavors so appealing to young people who might already be pretty hooked, they're going to find other ways in which to get it. How concerned about that are you?

CUOMO: Well, look, that -- yes, well, that's the problem in the first place, right? What they have done, many of these vaping companies started as tobacco companies. We spent 50 years. We lost millions of Americans, billions of dollars fighting the tobacco industry.

Literally this first surgeon general's report, Fred, was 1964. We don't settle with the tobacco companies until 1998. And what they do is they sell a product that literally addicts the consumer. And they have a customer for life because now you're literally addicted to the nicotine in their product.

WHITFIELD: Which is why the American Lung Association --

CUOMO: That's what they did.

WHITFIELD: -- is now calling -- sorry to interrupt -- you know, why the American Lung Association is calling your ban insufficient because it does exclude menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, tobacco, you know, flavored. So what is your response to that?

CUOMO: Yes. Well, they have the wrong information, first of all. We said we are going to continue to review menthol and we may very well ban menthol also in the future.

Here's the flip side to their point. The only justification for vaping is -- and what the vaping companies will say is, well, it's better than cigarettes. That is true. That is like saying, hitting yourself on the head with a wooden stick is better than hitting yourself on the head with a metal stick, OK? Yes, but the difference is almost insignificant.

But if -- the best way to get off smoking, there's medication, there's lozenges, there's gums, et cetera. Vaping would only be the last resort. But even in that situation, that's why we allow tobacco and menthol, because menthol -- there is data that says people who smoke menthol cigarettes need menthol products in vaping for vaping to be effective for them to get off cigarettes.

WHITFIELD: I got you, all right.

CUOMO: This is a limited population. I hear that argument.

WHITFIELD: OK.

CUOMO: Our Department of Health is continuing to review menthol, but we may very well also ban menthol because young people are also attracted to menthol. So I understand both points.

WHITFIELD: A possible first step. All right, Governor Andrew Cuomo, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

CUOMO: Thank you. WHITFIELD: All right, still to come, the gun debate is still very much an issue on Capitol Hill. Now, Democratic leaders say they have spoken with President Trump to finally get meaningful legislation passed. Details on that right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:37:55] WHITFIELD: During a phone call today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged the President to support background checks for guns.

200 days after the House passed a bipartisan background check bill, the Democratic leaders held a joint phone call with the President of the United States this morning and they asked Trump to use his influence to force Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to take up the background check legislation in the U.S. Senate.

CNN's White House Producer, Kevin Liptak joins us right now with more on this. So, Kevin, what more do we know about this phone call, how influential it might have been?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER: Well, Fredricka, we know the call took place this morning, and one thing that caught my eye in the description of the call from Pelosi and Schumer, they told the President that they would join him in what they called a historic Rose Garden signing ceremony if he got behind this House passed bill to expand background.

Now, of course, we know the President has an affinity for ceremony, (INAUDIBLE) circumstance, that sort of thing. It appears like they're leaning on that nature of his personality to get him behind this background check bill.

Now, earlier today, Senate -- Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was at his office in New York City. He also spoke about this phone call. Listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): You know, Pelosi and I got on the phone with President Trump. And we said, for the sake of this country, it's the 200th day since the House passed HRA, the universal background check bill, please tell McConnell to put it on the floor. I told the President it was the right thing to do, it was the just thing to do, and frankly, I told him it's politically correct, maybe appealing to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: Now, the likelihood of the President actually signing this bill at this point appears nonexistent. The White House has threatened to veto it. As Schumer said there, Mitch McConnell hasn't brought the bill up for a vote in the Senate.

This week, the White House is expected to lay out what the President can support on gun control. The big overarching question is whether he can support some form of expanding background checks that will allow the Senate to take up whatever that is when he spells out what he can support, Fredricka.

[15:40:10] WHITFIELD: All right. We'll see what that phone call might bring. All right, Kevin Liptak, thank you so much.

All right, straight ahead, after a roller coaster off-season, Antonio Brown is back on the football field, and it comes as he faces serious allegations of sexual assault. More right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Right now, NFL star Antonio Brown is making his debut as a New England Patriot, just days after facing rape and sexual assault allegations. The wide receiver is playing in his first game of the 2019 season and already has a touchdown for his new team.

But Brown's future is up in the air. He has denied the allegations, but this week, Britney Taylor, the former trainer accusing him in a civil lawsuit, will meet with NFL officials to give her side of the story.

CNN Sports Correspondent Andy Scholes is at the game covering this for us. So, Andy, how much of a cloud over the game are those allegations?

[15:45:06] ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Fred, all eyes were on Antonio Brown coming into this game here with the Patriots and the Dolphins. You know, the question was, you know, if he was going to play in this one, how much of a role would he play for the New England Patriots? And we found out pretty quickly a pretty big one.

You know, Brown was able to practice with the Patriots on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, you know, despite those allegations in that civil suit that came out earlier this week. And Tom Brady and Antonio Brown look like they have gone through all the training camp together.

Brady finding Brown three times on the opening drive and in the second quarter they hooked up with their first touchdown together with Brown jumping in the stands and celebrating with some Patriots fans. So, so far so good for Antonio brown, the football player on the field with the Patriots.

They're going to win in a blowout in this one over the Dolphins. They'll be 1-0 at Brown, 2-0 on this season. But now, Fredricka, it's a waiting game to see what comes next in terms of what the NFL is going to decide to do with the allegations that have surfaced with Antonio Brown.

WHITFIELD: Right. And what we understand is what's scheduled right now is that the former trainer, Britney Taylor, will be meeting with the NFL as early as tomorrow. But then, what can be expected from that meeting? Then what happens, potentially?

SCHOLES: Yes. So the NFL is going to want to get this done, as you can imagine, as soon as possible. You know, Britney Taylor was getting married over the weekend, that's why there was no meeting with the NFL, reportedly, last week or this weekend, which really is one of the main reasons why Brown, no matter what, was going to take the field this weekend, because the NFL had no chance to talk to Britney Taylor before this upcoming week.

But you know they're going to want to do that as soon as possible, because they're not going to want to go through another week of people questioning why is Antonio Brown playing considering the allegations that have been brought against him, allegations that he does deny.

WHITFIELD: All right, Andy Scholes, thank you so much, in Miami. Appreciate it. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:27] WHITFIELD: All right, 25 years after the sitcom "Friends" debut and became must see T.V., the show continues to be one of the most popular and highest grossing television shows of all time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR, NEW DAY: Matthew Perry --

MARTA KAUFFMAN, CO-CREATOR, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Yes.

CAMEROTA: -- you really wanted him?

KAUFFMAN: He was the first person and we offered Chandler too. And he was doing another show called LAX 21 --

CAMEROTA: LAX 2194.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the sci-fi sitcom LAX 2194.

MATTHEW PERRY, ACTOR: It's about baggage handlers in the year 2194. I sorted out alien's luggage.

CAMEROTA: That is not a winning title.

KAUFFMAN: No, it's not. It's not. But that was in first position.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That happens when you find the talent that you think is perfect for a role and you'll take the chance the other show will fail and they'll become b available.

KAUFFMAN: We were a little nervous about it, but we saw a million people even made an offer to someone else.

CAMEROTA: Who?

KAUFFMAN: No.

CAMEROTA: It's the 25th anniversary, now the truth can be told.

KAUFFMAN: He's a lovely actor named Craig Bierko. CAMEROTA: Yes.

KAUFFMAN: And he didn't want to do an ensemble show.

CAMEROTA: I'm going to go with not Craig's best decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: OK. My colleague, Alisyn Camerota, is hosting the one hour special "Friends Forever: 25 Years of Laughter" tonight on CNN. And I spoke with her about the fame of "Friends."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Good to see you, Alisyn. And oh my gosh, I mean, so many folks watch this forever for so long and feel like they know all of these characters. Is that what you felt like, too, when you get a chance to sit and meet and chat and reminisce with all of them?

CAMEROTA: Oh, completely. I mean, I was a "Friends" fan when it happened the first time around and then as you say, it has had basically a renaissance. There is an entire new crop of kids because of Netflix, who now love and watch "Friends," including my 14-year-old daughter and her best friends who have seen every single episode multiple times.

And so I'm reliving it through this next generation and I think it's a real testament, obviously, to the show that it has that kind of staying power, that it is still -- you know, it doesn't feel dated when you watch it. It's still good.

WHITFIELD: Wow. I mean, so what is it about the show that allows it to do that, you know, to not feel dated? I mean, you talked to the creators, you talked to some of the stars, did they ever imagine that it would have that kind of staying power when they first embarked?

CAMEROTA: No one could ever have imagined it.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Because sitcoms don't usually have the longevity of 25 years. And so we really wanted to, in this special, kind of crack the code of what their secret sauce is. Who doesn't want to figure that out? I mean, in terms of the future of television, what is it that has given it that kind of staying power?

And so we talked to the creators, the writers, the guest stars, and what everybody said was that there are something about how the issues. You know, at first you think that "Friends" is sort of a confection, that is it cotton candy. In fact, some of the original critics said, oh, it's inane, it's superficial.

But then, when you dig a little deeper, you find out that they actually are exploring all of the issues that everybody can relate to, being 20 or something, not knowing what the future holds, dealing with relationships, the hits and misses of relationships, getting your first job. You know, the time in your life when your friends are really your family and somehow that still resonates today.

WHITFIELD: Wow. But with that, you know, underlying theme of comedy, you know, making it funny, making it palatable and it really is a global sensation. We're not just talking about, you know, American, you know, kids, you know, growing up or identifying with, but -- I mean, globally, folks of all corners can feel a connection with "Friends."

CAMEROTA: Because, again, there is something universal about it. There's some sort of universal -- I mean, what the creators told us was that, yes, sure, they could have done a sitcom. Again, at first blush, you think its rapid fire jokes, just one after another, rat-a- tat-tat.

But what they did, even in the pilot from the very opening episode, is it had this underlying tone of pathos, really, about emotions. And they're -- in fact, what we learned was that the network at first when they first watched the pilot said this show is too sad.

This show is too sad, because you see Rachel looking forlorn. You know, Ross looking forlorn at the end. They're struggling with relationships. And so what they did, as you'll learned in the special, is they added that opening sequence where they're, you know, joking around at the fountain and there's a happy music, peppy music --

[15:55:00] WHITFIELD: Yes, like that is great.

CAMEROTA: -- and that changed the whole tone.

WHITFIELD: Oh, interesting. So now, what about all these stars? Because, I mean, of course, you know, I think forever, you know, Courtney Cox, Jennifer Aniston, you know, Matt LeBlanc, they will really always be associated with this show.

Many of them have gone on, you know, and done other things. But, I think viewers kind of think they were perfectly put together because there was this chemistry. But what was it about, what's the story behind how they were cast and how they, you know, came together as this amazing ensemble?

CAMEROTA: We've got a lot of juicy behind the scenes, tidbits, about that. And what's so interesting is that at some point for every one of those characters, there was going to be a different person basically. This cast is who the creators wanted. They always wanted them. But every single one of them was somehow committed to something else or had some sort of conflict.

And so they didn't -- the creators did not believe that they were going to get this cast, although from the first moment that this cast read together, you'll hear the creators say something magical happened.

That the first very table read, there was an alchemy that these six people had that nobody else have, but they didn't think they were going to get them because they were already committed to other projects and then the stars aligned and somehow all their other projects were canceled, or they failed somehow, or they got out of them, or the studio let them out of them and then it came together like this.

WHITFIELD: Wow, it really came together. All right, Alisyn Camerota, we're going to all have a lot of fun. Thank you so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: See how fun the story behind this great show. Don't miss our CNN Special Report, "Friends Forever: 25 Years of Laughter." It's tonight, 9:00 Eastern only on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)