Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Britain's Court Decision Could Hurt Boris Johnson Politically; Travelers Still Waiting to be Repatriated; President Trump's Abuse of Power Ticking Democrats' Temper; Duke and Duchess of Sussex Receives Warm Welcome. Aired 3-3:30a ET

Aired September 24, 2019 - 03:00   ET

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

[03:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. It's 9 a.m. in Berlin, 5 p.m. in Sydney. From Atlanta headquarters, I'm Rosemary Church. And this is CNN Newsroom.

Let's get started. Ahead this hour, decision day for Britain's Supreme Court. Judges are about to make a ruling which could have big implications for Brexit and Boris Johnson.

Plus, Democrats near the tipping point on impeaching Donald Trump after the U.S. president admits to discussing a political rival with Ukraine's leader.

And the largest peacetime repatriation in British history. The U.K. government struggles to get passengers back home after the unexpected collapsed of Thomas Cook.

Good to have you with us.

So British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's political future hangs in the balance as we wait for the U.K. Supreme Court to decide whether his move to suspend parliament was legal.

In just a couple of hours the court is expected to hand down its decision, Mr. Johnson's opponents believed he suspend that the assembly to sidestepped opposition to his Brexit plan before the October 31st withdrawal deadline.

He says the suspension was necessary to give the government to prepare for a new legislative agenda.

CNN's Melissa Bell joins me now from London with more on this. So, Melissa, great to see you. There is of course much anticipation surrounding this ruling. What are the legal analysts saying about the likely outcome here?

MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are so many questions, and of course, this is going to be such an important verdict not only as you say for the position of the prime minister himself, but of course, in terms of what's likely to happen in the next few weeks with Brexit.

The clock is ticking, of course, we're just over a month away from that 31st of October deadline. And what is decided here by the Supreme Court today will have huge incidence on exactly how those few weeks up until that deadline go. And of course, ultimately, how and whether Brexit happens.

There so much hanging in the balance, and perhaps an indication or measure of just how closely this is being watch. It's pouring with rain, the decision won't be for another two and half hours, and yet, the mass ranks of the press as you'd expect are here, as are the protesters who are for Brexit and against who have been out here day in and day out whatever the weather conditions, asked those judges inside the Supreme Court deliberated on this case.

Now essentially, what they are considering here, Rosemary, are two appeals, one against the decision by the high court in London that ruled in the government's favor in this instance, and another about a ruling in Scotland, the highest court there which ruled against the government. Ruling in fact that the suspension of parliament had not been legal and had been carried with the view to signing the proceedings of the legislative power.

Now the question that will be put today and so much will hang in the wording of how the judges deliver their verdict. It won't be a simple sort of yes or no. It will be very closely watch to see precisely how they word it.

Because the way that they word it, is what will determine whether in the next few hours, or at all, that other pillar of British democracy, the parliament which is just across the square from here, will or will not have to resume.

So, an awful lot hanging on this decision, and it's going to be, Rosemary, extremely closely watched not least by the prime minister whose of course in New York for that U.N. climate change conference.

CHURCH: Indeed. What are the newspapers saying about all of these? What they have been saying so far?

BELL: well, they've been keeping a very close eye on proceedings. And just to give you an idea of how closely the British have been watching this.

That first day of proceedings here at the high court the streaming video is watched by 4.4 million people, which for Britain's population is significant for the proceedings going on inside the Supreme Court.

So, an awful lot of attention. And of course, because there is that complication of the wording of the verdict of precisely what it might lead to it, because we are on uncharted territory, this is being picked day in and day out by the British press as you'd expect.

Essentially, what we imagine will happen at 10.30, Rosemary, local time, so in two and half hours, is that the justice -- the judges will come out with their verdict, and there are essentially three possibilities.

We know this from the documents that have been filed by the government within this deliberation here at the Supreme Court.

[03:04:57]

Either they can rule that the suspension of parliament was unlawful but worded in such a way that the government then has the possibility to suspend it again but perhaps in a more lawful way, one that is more in line with the judge's verdict.

Another possibility is that the judges ruled that in fact it was unlawful and Boris Johnson has no choice but to bring parliament back. That of course points out the government would take some time because it will take substantial arrangements to prepare for that queen speech and the ceremonial reopening of the parliament.

The third possibility, Rosemary, and this is something the press has been looking at a great deal would be the possibility that the verdict -- that the idea of prorogation was ruled unlawful, that in fact, it had never happened and things carried on as they were. Giving a tremendous amount of power to M.P.s almost immediately after the verdict to getting back to the drawing table about how they think Brexit should be carried out, Rosemary.

CHURCH: All right. That ruling coming down in less than two and a half hours from now. Our Melissa Bell waiting for it and giving us analysis on the very latest information. Many thanks to you, Melissa.

So, let's bring in Thom Brooks, he is a professor of law and government at Durham University. Good to have you with us.

THOM BROOKS, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT, DURHAM UNIVERSITY: Thank you.

CHURCH: So not long now and we will know what Britain's Supreme Court has decided on Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament. If the court rules against him, what needs to happen next?

BROOKS: If they find against him, it will be, I think a real blow to Boris Johnson because it would have confirmed the prime minister misled the queen in requesting that she suspense parliament, effectively that he lied to her, and it will really provoke a constitutional crisis.

In normal circumstances a prime minister would resign at the mere thought that he or she might have done so. And I think that his position will get pretty close to untenable, if not untenable, if he loses today. It will be a massive blow to him. Parliament will have to be reconvened effectively right away.

CHURCH: And what's the sense that you're getting or do get any sense this will go either way? BROOKS: I don't know, frankly, another lawyer or legal commentator

that thinks that the government will win. We all think the government will lose this case. The argument was pretty weak, saying that they needed the longest, as you heard Jeremy Corbyn saying, the longest break in of 300 years in order to put together a speech for the queen to read out on the legislative agenda.

Typically, this is just a few days. This is kind of a formal break from one session of parliament before the next one. It's never required really a week, let alone several weeks to do.

And the court in questioning the government seem pretty brutal, you know, take down of a number of arguments. They were really taken by their opponents, who said that the government was able to suspend parliament for five weeks to suit their agenda, what's to stop for doing it for five months or five years if they couldn't get their way in parliament. And that seem the wrong way around. Because the parliament is sovereign not the government. The government is (AUDIO GAP) so we all expect that the government will lose.

CHURCH: Interesting. And Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as we just heard told CNN that if the Supreme Court thus rule that the suspension of parliament was unlawful, he would demand the parliament to be recalled and the suspension lifted, but that's all he says about it.

And given lawmakers will have less than 30 business days to figure all this all out before the October 31st deadline, does a no deal Brexit look inevitable at this time?

BROOKS: I don't think it looks inevitable quite yet. I mean, one thing that was true throughout Theresa May's troubled tenure trying to get any type of Brexit deal to the parliament, is that members of parliament at the moment are not united on much.

One thing that brings them altogether is their opposition to a no deal Brexit. That's the one thing that always gets the majority in this, it has consistently done so. And I think and that is why it's been alleged that Boris Johnson wanted to suspend the parliament to try to stop parliament from being able to get in his way of delivering the threat of a no deal.

So, I think that while there won't be much time and it's the only thing, the only vote that we can expect the parliament will stand up to the prime minister and stop it.

Remember, this a prime minister that does not have a majority in parliament. He's in a minority group and a lot of his actions over the last few weeks and only his first few weeks as prime minister he's lost every vote in parliament so far and dripping away what majority, working majority he's had.

So, I think that if Boris Johnson loses today it will be a real problem for him to get anything done at all, at all at general election and I think it could well be hurting his party.

[03:09:57] CHURCH: Our thanks to Thom Brooks for that, and we will have complete coverage of the high court's ruling. That starts at 10 a.m. in London, 5 p.m. in Hong Kong right here on CNN.

Well, President Trump is set to meet with Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday. And the two could have a lot to talk about.

A senior administration official tells CNN, the U.S. president ordered a freeze on military aid to Ukraine back in July. The aid was worth hundreds of millions of dollars and came just days before Mr. Trump's call with President Zelensky.

In that call Mr. Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and Biden's son Hunter.

CNN's Pamela Brown has more from Washington.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Trump arriving for the United Nations General Assembly today under a cloud of his own making.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We had a perfect with the president of Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: An advisor telling CNN, this is a serious problem for us, after Trump admitted this weekend, he asked the Ukrainian president to investigate former Vice President and Democratic front runner Joe Biden and his son.

The president says he was well within bounds because the new leader's campaign was all about cleaning up corruption, implying those efforts could be tied to U.S. aid to Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If you don't talk about corruption why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt.

One of the reasons the new president got elected is he was going to stop corruption, so it's very important that on occasion you speak to somebody about corruption. very important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: But later clarifying during a meeting with the Polish president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I did not make a statement that you have to do this or I'm not going to give you aid. I wouldn't do that. I put no pressure on them whatsoever. I could have. I think it would possibly been OK if I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: While there is no direct evidence Biden as vice president had Ukraine's prosecutor fired to squelch and investigation of a company linked to his son, Trump insists something nefarious is afoot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If a Republican ever did what Joe Biden did, if a Republican ever said what Joe Biden said, they'd be getting the electric chair by right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Trump saying he would be OK releasing the call's transcript, sort of.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It would be fine to do it. I'll give it to a respective source they can look at it, but what I said was so good. It was a great conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: White house officials are considering releasing the transcript, sources tell CNN, but some senior officials are firmly against the idea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Those are private conversations between world leaders and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so except in the most extreme circumstances.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Concern it could give Congress the ability to demand transcripts of calls with other leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVEN MNUCHIN, U.S. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: I think that will be a terrible precedent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Trump instead shifting the focus to the unknown whistleblower who raised the alarm about the call. Tweeting, quote, "Who is this so- called whistleblower who doesn't know the correct facts? Is he on our countryside? Where does he come from?"

Now President Trump continues to go after the whistleblower, even though he has said he doesn't know the identity. Now, in the past, President trump has claimed he will be transparent on an issue, such as saying he'll be willing to testify in front of Robert Mueller on Russia, and then it never actually happened.

So, it remains to be seen whether he will follow through on what he has dangled so far this possibility of releasing the transcript from his phone call with the Ukrainian president.

Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.

CHURCH: And earlier, I spoke to Natasha Lindstaedt, professor of government at the University of Essex in England, and I asked her what she makes of the allegations President Trump withheld military aid and tried to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NATASHA LINDSTAEDT, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX: Well, I think that the only response I can have is just complete shocked. I'm terrified by what's going on, namely because I don't see the Republicans really being up and arms about this, and this is a really threat to democracy. And the Democrats are also sort of stalling. So, we'll see what happens there. I'm sure we'll talk about more -- about that more in a bit.

But to just highlight the differences between the 2016 case and what's happening here. In 2016, this was, you know, the collusion efforts you could say were initiated by the Russians. This was initiated by Trump himself. And in 2016 it really only involved aides. And this is involving Trump and Giuliani predominantly.

And the other thing that's important to note, is this is all post- Mueller, this happens on the heels very fresh off the Mueller investigation so Trump would know better.

And the other big difference is in 2016 Trump was just a candidate and now he's the president and he's abusing power in order to undermine the credibility of U.S. elections again.

[03:14:59]

And what that shows to us is that he has become more brazen as the Mueller investigation didn't really lead to anything, he feels that he can really get away with whatever he wants to.

CHURCH: Right.

LINDSTAEDT: And we're seeing in his response about this. He is not necessarily denying what's happened. He's just sort of saying, that that's OK, that it was a great conversation, and this is something that he's allowed to do.

And once the Democrats decide to actually press him on this, then he's going to continue with this behavior where he flagrantly abuses the rule of law, and oversteps the boundaries of what executive power were meant to be. CHURCH: Well, let's talk about that, because as we mentioned

President Trump admitted that he asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden's son and said he was within legal bounds to do that. That's not actually the case.

Does this leave Democrats with little alternative but to impeach the president, and if they do that, what will be likely the outcome, because it doesn't look good in the Senate. And of course, Nancy Pelosi isn't really moving in that direction, but will this be the reason she has to go there?

LINDSTAEDT: Right. And I think with this case, bare minimum, it's probably a campaign finance violation. It does not even get into all the other complications of withholding aid to a country that is desperately in need of it to fight off Russian aggression.

I think the Democrats have no choice to impeach. I think this should be the final straw for them. And I think from Nancy Pelosi's position, she felt that as there wasn't enough of the public behind impeachment before, she didn't want to risk it. And so, she thought that taking a slow and cautious strategy would be better by making the case through these investigations.

But what we found in dealing with Trump the investigations haven't been working because he simply refuses to provide information, block things, blocks the release of documents.

And in order for the Democrats to take more power, vis-a-vis, or let's just say the House to have more power, vis-a-vis, the executive branch, they are going to have to initiate impeachment because that gives them more legal power in order to get access more information, whether to be issuing subpoenas or getting witnesses to come forward.

In the current state they don't have that power, and they tried to make the case through these investigations but it keeps getting blocked by Trump himself.

CHURCH: Natasha Lindstaedt, thank you so much for your analysis. We appreciate it.

LINDSTAEDT: Thanks for having me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: And coming up next on CNN Newsroom, a scathing indictment from a Swedish teenager. What this 16-year-old is demanding from world leaders.

Plus, with hundreds of thousands of travelers stranded all over the world, Thomas Cook's bosses are now facing scrutiny for hefty payouts, while the tour operator was on the brink of collapse. We'll take a look.

[03:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHURCH: Welcome back, everyone.

The United Nations General Assembly gets underway in just a few hours. But on Monday, world leaders gather to discuss solutions to the climate crisis.

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg gave a scathing reveal to the world leaders, scolding them for their inaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA THUNBERG, CLIMATE ACTIVIST: I shouldn't be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams, my childhood with your empty words.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: A powerful speech there. And among the world leaders was U.S. President Donald Trump who spent about 15 minutes at the meeting. He left before Thunberg spoke. But the 16-year-old caught up him in the corridor staring him down, Mr. Trump refused though to look her way.

Well, as the U.K. works to bring home hundreds of thousands of travelers stranded by the Thomas Cook collapse, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is questioning why its bosses got substantial payouts and bonuses even as the company was nearing its demise.

He visited the British consulate in New York on Monday to meet with staffers working to help many of the tour operator's customers still stranded abroad.

And we get more now from CNN's Melissa Bell.

BELL: This was the last Thomas Cook plane ever to fly. It landed at Manchester airport from Orlando just hours after the world's oldest tour company has gone into liquidation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER FANKHAUSER, CEO, THOMAS COOK: I want to apologize to my 21,000 colleagues, who I know will be heartbroken. You all fought so hard to make Thomas Cook a success.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: With all of its flights grounded overnight, 600,000 tourists found themselves stranded abroad as British authorities prepared to get U.K. citizens home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM JOHNSON, POLICY DIRECTOR, U.K. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: This is a huge operation, 150,000 people currently abroad. We've charted over 40 aircraft and those aircraft are already in position, and in the next few hours will start bringing -- will start bringing passengers home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: Others who'd been schedule to start their holiday arrived at British airport where they heard the news that their trips, and even their honeymoons had been canceled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, we're absolutely gutted. We've looked forward to this for a long time. had the wedding in July, so it's been another couple of months waiting for this. Yes, absolutely just totally gutted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: The company had been in talks with its biggest shareholder the Chinese firm Fosun over a 900-million-pound bailout package. But to request with the British government for an extra 250-million-pound contingency fund was turned down, leaving the British opposition and unions to lay the blame squarely at the British government's feet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANA HOLLAND, ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT, UNITE UNION: Today, we have members who have woken up to the story that their company has collapsed. And they haven't got a job. It is absolutely shocking and they (Inaudible) fathom that this could have been allowed to happen.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Excuse me, what did you tell staff this morning?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: But the government says that providing the money would just put off the company's collapsed, rather than preventing it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT SHAPPS, BRITISH TRANSPORT SECRETARY: So the government obviously would do anything we could to support, but the reality is, I think that times had changed, and this is a business that was still, perhaps operating on the model that was good for the last century or the 1980s or something, but not for really, the internet age where people are booking their own holiday so much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: Online competition and political uncertainty in some of the company's key destinations have been blamed by Thomas Cook, but also Brexit for pushing people to delay, making their holiday plans.

For years, Thomas Cook's advertising urge those looking to get away not to book it but to Thomas Cook it.

This morning, hundreds of thousands of customers found that they were going to have to rebook it themselves.

Melissa Bell, CNN at Gatwick airport.

CHURCH: And still to come, Prince Harry and Meghan deliver a message of hope, the joyous turn they are setting on their South Africa tour. We're back with that in a moment.

[03:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHURCH: Welcome back, everyone.

Well, Britain's duke and duchess of Sussex will keep the focus on children on the second day of their African tour. They will visit Waves for Change (AUDIO GAP) provides mental health services to young people. And they will mark Heritage Day in the largely (AUDIO GAP) area of Bo-Kaap. And they'll attend a reception for youth at the British High Commissioner's residence.

They began their tour outside Cape Town in a township notorious for its high murder rate.

Max Foster reports the message of support from the duchess was met with cheers.

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: The duke and duchess of Sussex this evening arousing response to the end of their first day here in Cape Town. It all started though, out in a township, a project very close to the duchess' heart which is women in parliament.

So young girls are being taught about how to empower themselves and about self-defense. And in a speech, she spoke powerfully about her own identity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGHAN, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: I want you to know that for me, I am here with you as a mother, as a wife, as a woman, as a woman a color and as your sister.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: After the event they couldn't avoid to get dragged into the dancing. There's music throughout the day as they're often airs here. After that event they came to this area just to the side of district six, which is the area which during apartheid it was cleared.

Tens of thousands of people were sent away from their homes to live in another area and they found about that.

During the rest of the tour they'll find out about different parts of South Africa before Prince Harry heads off to Botswana, then Angola, then Malawi then they meet up again in South Africa in Johannesburg as a family. We don't know when or if we'll see baby Archie. But he is due to make

his first public appearance, his first official engagement at some point here in South Africa. So, we'll bring you the pictures as we get them.

Max Foster, CNN, Cape Town.

CHURCH: We shall certainly do that. And thanks so much for watching CNN Newsroom. I'm Rosemary Church. I'll be back with the headlines in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END