Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Attacks Impeachment Witness Ahead Of Hearing; Trump's Medical Visit To Walter Reed Unusual For Routine Exam; Pete Buttigieg Surges To First Place In Key State Of Iowa; Obama Warns Democratic Candidates: Don't Go Too Far Left; Arizona Voters React To The Testimony So Far; Boston Bomber Allegedly Involved In 2011 Triple Homicide; Top 10 CNN Hero Uses Video Games To Aid Children; Navy Service Member Surprises Son At Middle School. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired November 17, 2019 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:04]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, again, everyone. And thank you so much for being with me this Sunday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Ahead of a very busy week on Capitol Hill in the impeachment inquiry.

Fresh new attacks from President Trump lashing out at another witness. This time, he's setting his sights on Jennifer Williams, an aide to the Vice President Mike Pence and a career foreign service officer. She is one of several key officials testifying in public this week beginning on Tuesday.

President Trump's new Twitter attack comes just a day after Williams' deposition testimony was released and in it she's purported as saying that she thought the pressure on Ukraine was, I'm quoting now, "inappropriate."

Let's bring in CNN White House Correspondent, Jeremy Diamond.

So, Jeremy, what more is the president saying and why is he, you know, targeting, focusing in on Jennifer Williams.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Fredricka, the president is once again going after a witness in this impeachment inquiry. This time targeting Jennifer Williams, who is an aide to the vice president, his special adviser on Europe and Russian affairs. Ad she testified earlier this week, her testimony -- sorry, the transcripts of her testimony was released yesterday.

Here is what the president said about her. He tweeted, "Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of presidential calls and see the just-released statement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other never Trumpers who I don't know and mostly never even heard of, and work out a better presidential attack."

And now Williams did testify in her testimony earlier this week that the president's request of the Ukrainian President Zelensky to carry out the specific investigations was unusual and inappropriate. So perhaps that is why the president is now targeting her.

It is just the latest string of attacks from the president against witnesses in this impeachment inquiry. In particular, administration officials working for him. The president has also attacked the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, as a never Trumper, as well as Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, a National Security Council official. Both of those attacks as well as the attack on Jennifer Williams have no basis, no evidence to back up the president's claims.

What is startling, though, is the response that we've gotten so far from the vice president's office. I reached out to say, does the vice president have any response to the president attacking one of his own advisers, and the response that I got from Katie Waldman, the press secretary to the vice president, was simply, "Jennifer is a State Department's employee."

Clearly there, an attempt by the vice president's office to distance themselves from this official, who is technically a State Department employee but is currently detailed to the vice president's office like so many other State Department officials who are detailed to the White House as foreign policy advisers.

And again, Fredricka, this is likely to once again raise those questions that the House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff raised earlier this week where when the president attacks witnesses in this impeachment investigation, is that witness intimidation? That is the question that Democrats have raised. And Jennifer Williams this week is expected to come testify publicly on Capitol Hill just days after being attacked by the president -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And Jeremy Diamond, what they all have in common is they're all public servants who are working for the American people but happen to serve under this administration.

Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much.

All right, here with me right now, Melissa Murray. She is a professor at New York University's law school and CNN Legal Analyst, Ross Garber, also with us, who teaches impeachment law at Tulane University.

Good to see both of you.

So, Melissa, you first. You know, President Trump has now attacked several witnesses. George Kent, Bill Taylor, Alex Vindman, Marie Yovanovitch, now Jennifer Williams, all of them with their history with the U.S. State Department, and all while calling for the whistleblower to be outed. Adam Schiff, the intel chairman, says it is witness tampering. If so, what are the consequences?

MELISSA MURRAY, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: And so witness tampering is federal crime and this would certainly be the case here but the real question is what is the impact of this on the impeachment hearings. And on Wednesday, Adam Schiff alluded to the fact that this witness intimidation could perhaps be something that could form the basis of an impeachable offense. So the idea here is that it could work its way into an Article of Impeachment alongside the other standard things that the House is currently investigating.

WHITFIELD: And, Ross, the ambassador -- former Ambassador Yovanovitch was attacked by the president verbally during her testimony. Here is what she had to say about all that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Now the president in real time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, it's very intimidating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And so, Ross, if it were rolled into an Article of Impeachment, would it need to be packaged, you know, to accompany other potential violations?

[16:05:11]

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think that's how it's going to be presented. I think it will probably be rolled into sort of a general kind of obstruction or abuse of process or, you know, abuse of power article. And it almost seemed as if Chairman Schiff was, believe it or not, waiting for it, thinking that perhaps maybe the president might actually tweet something like this. It's not a surprise.

I think it's emblematic, though, of a much bigger problem and something that's going to be more troublesome for the president. The fact that the president thinks he needs to tweet his own defense suggest that there's not a cohesive, coherent defense structure in place at the White House or on his personal team. It is very, very dangerous for him to feel like he's his only defender.

WHITFIELD: So, Melissa, it appears, you know, despite whatever criticisms have come, you know, by way of the president, Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch, you know, Vindman, all have been unflappable. They have proceeded to testify. Do you see the same likely for Jennifer Williams since her open testimony is upcoming?

MURRAY: Well, certainly. I think she will be unflappable. These are career foreign service professionals. These are not political appointees and they're testifying to a similar kind of feeling.

That they've watched everything that's going on in the State Department and in the White House, and this is highly unusual. Highly inappropriate. A second channel, a shadow channel, and this is not the way foreign policy is ordinarily conducted. And they're stepping forward and they've up stalwart and unflappable in making that case.

WHITFIELD: And, Ross, the committees have -- you know, seem to all say in unison that there's no need really thus far for testimony of the whistleblower because now all of these second hand and in some cases firsthand accounts people have already testifying, yet the president continues to say, by way of his, you know, $66 million Twitter handle and account, that people need to hear firsthand from the whistleblower. Is it even necessary? Is it a necessary consideration at this juncture?

GARBER: At this point, it may not be. But one thing to watch out for is the Republicans may actually be able to make a case, although they haven't yet, that the whistleblower's testimony is important and here's why. If the Republicans can explain why any of these witnesses may not be telling the truth, may not be accurate, may not be -- their information may not be valid, then perhaps what they told the whistleblower could actually become relevant and important, but so far that hasn't been the case.

Notably, you know, for example with, you know, Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony, the Republicans didn't really go after the accuracy of her testimony. Next week will be very interesting to see if the Republicans are able to make that case. To make the case that, you know, the witnesses' testimony isn't accurate and so the -- what they told the whistleblower could come into play.

WHITFIELD: So, Melissa, we've heard, you know, a litany of strategies coming from the Republicans from, you know, the Ukrainian company -- country got its money. So, you know, there is no quid pro quo to the process is unfair. That Republicans have a list of witnesses that have yet to be called or that the depositions have taken place, you know, in private.

Do any of these arguments or might any of these arguments potentially stand in the way of the process being played out?

MURRAY: Well, I think the one argument that the Republicans keep making that actually does bear water is that there have been very few witnesses that actually have firsthand accounts of this phone call, of the decision to withhold aid, and part of the problem, though, for the Republicans is that the reason there are no firsthand witnesses or not as many firsthand witnesses is because the president refuses to let those who were in the Oval Office, who were there when those calls were made, actually testify.

So the really interesting and pertinent argument is the one that's really in the hands of the Republicans and the president himself.

WHITFIELD: Melissa Murray, Ross Garber, we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

GARBER: Good to see you.

MURRAY: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead, new questions are emerging after CNN learns President Trump's unexpected medical exam did not follow standard protocol. Now a former Secret Service agent says something does not add up. He's joining me live, next.

[16:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, new questions today about President Trump's unexpected and unscheduled medical visit. A source tells CNN the president's unannounced visit to Walter Reed Medical Center Saturday afternoon did not follow protocol for a routine visit. Medical staff at Walter Reed did not get a staff-wide notice about a presidential visit ahead of Trump's arrival as would normally be the case.

The White House continues to downplay the surprise hospital visit saying the president underwent a, I'm quoting now, "quick exam and labs," end quote, as part of an annual physical.

Let's bring in Jonathan Wackrow, who once served as a former Secret Service agent under President Obama.

So, Jonathan, you worked at the White House protecting presidents. What's your reaction to the explanations being given about the president's unannounced visit to Walter Reed?

JONATHAN WACKROW, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT UNDER OBAMA: Well, listen, I think that -- let's just say that we have a lot of questions here and we don't have a lot of answers. I think it's really important to understand just what is the medical care that's around the president at all times?

The White House medical unit which is located inside of the White House complex is with the president 24 hours a day. He has doctors, physician assistants, nurses, clinicians, everyone around him to ensure that he is in the best health care 365 days a year.

That's why I always look at these annual physicals as just sort of an annual outing. A -- something that's done just from a compliance standpoint because the real health care is done, you know, at the White House.

Now what happened that he had to go to Walter Reed Medical Center? What type of tests did they have conducted there that they could not do at the White House?

[16:15:02]

I think that's the real question that everyone is looking at right now. And why did they do it with such short notice? Typically, a movement of the president anywhere off of the complex especially to Walter Reed is done -- the notification is made well in advance. It's publicized.

WHITFIELD: By hours or days or weeks?

WACKROW: By weeks. As an example, I coordinated the logistics for President Obama's annual physical in 2011. I made the notification three weeks in advance prior to his scheduled appointment in February. His annual appointment. So --

WHITFIELD: So while you all may have known, those in close quarters working for the White House, in detail. When I spoke with Dr. Sanjay Gupta earlier who also has had his experience working in the White House, he was saying that to make the exam public really is at the discretion of a president so it's not really that unusual. What wouldn't be unusual is that a president would publicize his exam.

WACKROW: Well, yes. Exactly. Listen, I think that it comes down to, was this really, you know, part of his 2020 annual physical or is there, you know, some other type of medical condition that needed to be addresses. If it's another type of medical condition, we really do owe the president his privacy in that matter. But to say that this is part of the 2020, you know, exam --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Yes. That's the White House spokesperson saying this was part one. Part two will come a little bit later and this was a good time to have it.

WACKROW: Listen -- right.

WHITFIELD: Why don't you like that?

WACKROW: Why don't I like that? Because it's a timing issue. Listen, he's the president of the United States. He arguably has the greatest health care program in the world. I am sure that he can get a same-day appointment at Walter Reed anytime he would like. So to say that we have to do this on a Saturday with short notice, there's just -- again it just leads to a lot of like questions that I think the public would like answered. But again for his privacy, maybe we can't get those answered.

WHITFIELD: All right. Jonathan Wackrow, we'll leave it right there. Thank you so much.

WACKROW: Hey, thanks so much, Fred.

WHITFIELD: OK. All right. Straight ahead of this week's Democratic debate, a new frontrunner in town in one key state.

Coming up, we'll have the latest CNN-"Des Moines Register" poll and what's behind Pete Buttigieg's sudden surge in Iowa.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:28]

WHITFIELD: All right. The 2020 battle for Iowa is heating up with a new Democratic frontrunner. Mayor Pete Buttigieg now holds a clear and significant lead in the Hawkeye State. That's according to a new CNN-"Des Moines Register"-Mediacom poll.

CNN's M.J. Lee is in Las Vegas covering the Warren campaign.

So, M.J., the senator has dropped six points since September in Iowa. How is the Warren camp responding to these new numbers?

M.J. LEE, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, this is just one more sign of the growing political momentum for Mayor Pete Buttigieg since the last time that the CNN poll was conducted in Iowa. He has made a 15-point jump going from 9 percent of support among likely caucus-goers to now 25 percent. And with Buttigieg in the clear lead, we also have three of his rivals now clustered together fighting for that second place spot including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden at 16 percent followed closely behind by Bernie Sanders at 15 percent.

And no other Democratic candidate now has double-digit support. Now Senator Warren herself has not yet reacted publicly to the results of this poll but we are here in north Las Vegas and she may get asked about that soon when she takes the stage, but I do want you to take a listen to something that she said in Iowa yesterday when she was campaigning there. Sort of making the argument for why she is currently the candidate for making big changes to the way that Washington functions versus some of the other rivals that she said are fighting for more incremental change. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is a time of crisis in this country. Washington insiders, media pundits, shoot, people in our own party, don't want to admit it. They think that running some vague campaign that nibbles around the edges is somehow safe, but if all Democrats who promised is business as usual after Donald Trump, the Democrats will lose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: Now the reason this is so interesting is because if you look at that Iowa poll that came out yesterday, the majority of likely caucus- goers in that state actually said that they would like to see a Democratic nominee who will fight for changes that are smaller if they have a better chance of becoming law.

Now this versus just 36 percent of people who said that they would rather see a Democratic nominee who will fight for big changes. And so much of what we have seen, the political dynamics we have seen in this race so far have been exactly about that, right, Fred? The candidates who say they're fighting for more incremental change, and then the candidates like Senator Warren or Senator Sanders who say that they are fighting to fundamentally change the way that Washington functions -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: And of course we all heard that warning coming from former president Barack Obama just before the weekend on that very approach.

M.J. Lee, thank you so much.

So CNN's Kyung Lah spoke with Buttigieg just after the poll came out last night and here's how he reacted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, that's extremely encouraging. You know, we have -- obviously. We have felt a lot of momentum on the ground. Even now, we know that we're not as well-known as some of my competitors, so it's very encouraging and at the same time there's a long way to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. Joining me right now, CNN Senior Political Analyst, Ron Brownstein and CNN Political Analyst, Astead Herndon.

All right, Astead, you first. You know, this was a 16-point jump. A significant one for Buttigieg. What is the bottom-line reason why Iowans are suddenly, you know, embracing him in a very big way?

[16:25:03]

ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that top number is interesting, but when you look at the other numbers, you get a good answer to that question. As Buttigieg has become more well-known in Iowa, you have seen voters almost instantly like him. His favorability has jumped as his name recognition has jumped in that state. Every time they're introduced to Mayor Pete, it is a positive feeling specifically in Iowa.

I was on that bus tour with him a couple of weeks ago and he was packing those rooms in rural Iowa, outside of Des Moines, and that kind of statewide support is what is driving this. Now let's remember Elizabeth Warren experienced this surge in the state a couple of weeks -- a couple of months prior. I think that's coming sometimes from the same places.

While ideologically they have been at odds in terms of the moderate and progressive lanes, in Iowa, you hear voters talk about how they like -- how each projects a presidential intelligence. How Warren's plans add up to an electability model and how Buttigieg and his frequent uses of Obama-esque rhetoric is something that brings them together. So they're playing kind of in that same lane. He's up this time and she was up previously.

WHITFIELD: So, Ron, is that, you know, a really important criteria that, you know, he's been showing up? He's had a lot of face time in Iowa and that makes a big difference.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: He's also spending a lot of money in television in Iowa. And that makes a difference, too. I mean, I think Iowa has become more influenced by media than kind of the grassroots over time, you know, historically. But I would say what's really interesting to me about Buttigieg is that he is -- he has a breath of support that is allowing him to cannibalize both the Elizabeth Warren constituency and the Joe Biden constituency which we think of as antithetical.

I mean, most people think of Buttigieg as someone who is elbowing aside Biden among moderates. And in fact the CNN polling unit ran for me some of the cross tabs from this survey and Buttigieg now has a clear lead among moderates in Iowa but the other half of the equation, Fred, is that he's also very strong among college educated voters, which have been the base for Elizabeth Warren. And the cross tabs that they ran for me, he is now leading Warren significantly among college educated voters in Iowa.

So if Buttigieg does emerge as a significant force out of Iowa, which seems possible, although it's worth noting the state historically has moved late and there -- you know, there's a lot of -- what's the word I'm looking for?

WHITFIELD: Jockeying.

BROWNSTEIN: Jockeying before the end. Jockeying before the end. But if he does emerge --

WHITFIELD: I knew where you were going.

BROWNSTEIN: If he does emerge, he has the potential to cut into both voters that Warren is counting on and that Biden is counting on.

WHITFIELD: Interesting. So, Astead, I wonder if these numbers, does this jolt a Warren, Sanders or Biden enough where they are now going to modify their approach? You know, or do they just move on and say, OK, that's Iowa for now but we're going to concentrate our efforts elsewhere?

HERNDON: I think they keep plugging along. I mean, it matters differently for each of those other folks in the top tier. If you are Elizabeth Warren, they have kind of tried to stay away from poll numbers and they think that as they continue to make their case, yes, they have come into a point where other candidates were hitting them now that they think that that case will be one that gets that kind of late movement that he was talking about previously.

If you are Bernie Sanders, you think that you have an electorate that's outside of polling. You think that you're bringing in new people into the caucus and that's what you're betting on at the end of the day. And if you're Joe Biden, frankly, you're looking past Iowa and New Hampshire.

You want to survive in those places, you want to project a good showing in those places, but you know that your base lies in the south in South Carolina and past Nevada. So you're just trying to get out of Iowa and New Hampshire looking good enough that voters still stick with you going forward.

WHITFIELD: So, Ron, President Obama, you know, he has a message really for all Democrats, doesn't he?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

WHITFIELD: I mean, this is what he said most recently and perhaps it's resonating with a lot of Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They like seeing things improved, but the average American doesn't think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it's important for us not to lose sight of that. (END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So how, you know, is that being received, you know, in the field?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, that is the core debate. I mean, you heard Elizabeth Warren's argument in the little clip in -- from Iowa where she said if we give voters business as usual before Donald Trump, they will pick Donald Trump again.

There is a part of the Democratic Party that says big fundamental change is the only way to win this election. There's another part, reflected in Biden, in Buttigieg, in Klobuchar, in Michael Bennet, the kind of, you know, at the back end of the race, who are arguing that, you know -- what voters want is tangible improvement in their daily lives and President Obama, while staying out of the Democratic race, kind of put a big foot down on one side of that debate.

It is also, to Astead's the point from before, can I just note that Buttigieg, even if he comes out of Iowa, faces the same challenge that Warren would face if she came out of Iowa, which is can she -- can either of them ultimately appeal to nonwhite voters, particularly African-American voters?

[16:30:00]

You know, the last four winners of Iowa have won the democratic nomination even when New Hampshire diverged from the result. And I think that's because in the modern media environment, the value of that first victory is so magnified. But each of those previous four; Gore, Kerry, Obama, and then Clinton, did well subsequently with African-American voters.

If Warren or Buttigieg or Sanders, any of them, can't do that, it might allow Biden to have a bigger chance. To me, the biggest single question in this race, Fred, is whether subpar showings for Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire dislodged his support among African-Americans in South Carolina or not.

WHITFIELD: Interesting.

BROWNSTEIN: That is probably the biggest outstanding question in the democratic race.

WHITFIELD: Astead, I see you're agreeing. I mean for Buttigieg, I mean the black vote, I mean that really is an Achilles for him because he has not been polling well among African-Americans.

HERNDON: Hundred percent. I think that is a huge question. I keep -- I keep kind of like repeating like a broken record. I think the most important question in Iowa is not only who wins, but where Joe Biden finishes.

If that is a finish that keeps that support in South Carolina and moving on, he has the inside track to the nomination and that seems clear. If it is -- if it is a showing that dislodges that support, then the whole race becomes kind of a big question mark.

For Buttigieg, for Warren, for Sanders, the question of the black vote remains critical. Can they get an electability showing? Can they prove they can win white voters and then people come around to them?

What Biden needs in Iowa is kind of a top four that's flat and he can say that he could keep his -- he can keep his supporters going forward. That's probably what Sanders and Warren need in the south and among black voters.

WHITFIELD: Okay. Wow. All right. Astead Herndon, Ron Brownstein, thank you so much to both of you. Appreciate it.

BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.

HERNDON: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, still to come, television ratings for the impeachment testimony revealed plenty of Americans are watching. We'll find out what some Arizona voters are saying about the hearings.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:10]

WHITFIELD: All right. Voters across the nation are paying close attention to the impeachment inquiry and as we await the beginning of week two of testimony. We wanted to know what crucial swing state voters are saying about what they have seen and heard so far. CNN's Kyung Lah traveled to Arizona to get reaction from Republican and Democratic voters.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Rising in Phoenix --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- is about to begin this historic moment. This is true history unfolding.

LAH: The sentiment of a possible impeachment.

DAVID CRONIN, INDEPENDENT VOTER: When there's smoke, there's fire.

LAH: Amid the breakfast rush.

CRONIN: I would just say it doesn't pass the sniff test. And I say that as a Independent, middle-of-the-road guy who could vote for Republican or a Democrat.

LAH: That middle ground, independents make up about one-third of Arizona voters.

BOYCE O'BRIEN, REGISTERED REPUBLICAN: My entire life I voted republican.

LAH: Every single time. O'BRIEN: Every single time up until the last election.

LAH: Until Donald Trump, says Boyce O'Brien, watching to see if it's a party he will return to.

O'BRIEN: I'm so disappointed in the Republican Party. It's embarrassing to me to even be affiliated with it at this point. My hope is that it will -- they'll finally develop a backbone and stand up for what's right.

LAH: While there are plenty who have made up their minds from the right --

KENT JEFFERS, REGISTERED REPUBLICAN: We're already getting -- other people been getting -- I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote for him again.

LAH: To the left.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, hey, hey, ho.

CROWD: Donald Trump has got to go!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Orange mango.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's -- ooh.

LAH: It is those in the middle in places like the Phoenix suburbs who represent the battleground.

CARLY REBUCK, FORMER REPUBLICAN VOTER TURNED DEMOCRAT: They insulate him. He doesn't hear any of this.

LAH: Carly Rebuck grew up a McCain Republican.

REBUCK: And then Meghan McCain is here.

LAH: She switched parties after Trump's election, her lifelong political identity gone with the maverick senator who left a lasting mark.

REBUCK: It made me feel proud to be an Arizonan. It made me feel proud to be a former Republican. To see him do that was just -- it meant a lot.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): This is what I can't believe and you're their star witness.

REBUCK: I don't recognize the Republican Party as it is right now.

LAH: Wearing her sentiment --

REBUCK: We're changing the world (Arthur).

LAH: And she watches the impeachment hearings with friends.

CINDY HANS, REGISTERED INDEPENDENT: My card actually says no party.

LAH: Your card says no party.

HANS: No party. No party.

LAH: And as the day begins to wrap --

HANS: I haven't heard anything yet to make me think that this president is innocent.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D) CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OF INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Now this concludes this portion of the hearing.

HANS: So if you can show me that, I might change my mind.

(END OF VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Kyung Lah, thank you so much. Still ahead, one of the Boston marathon bombers has been linked to a triple murder. Details in a live report next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:43:02]

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. New court documents show that one of the Boston marathon bomb bombers was allegedly involved in a triple murder back in 2011 almost two years before the terror attacks.

This information comes after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev filed an appeal for his conviction and death sentence. The affidavit says that his late older brother, Tamerlan, and another man allegedly bound, beat, and slit the throats of three men in the Boston area. CNN Correspondent, Natasha Chen is here to break it all down for us.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, Fred, this is really disturbing. We know that the older Tsarnaev brother, Tamerlan, died in a fire fight with police shortly after the Boston marathon bombings in 2013.

After that, his friend named Ibragim Todashev gave an interview to investigators and that's what this is. This search warrant that became unsealed this week shows the details of that 2013 interview where Todashev told investigators that he and the older Tsarnaev brother committed a triple murder two years before the bombing.

It happened to be the tenth anniversary of 9/11. He said that they had intended to do a robbery that the older Tsarnaev brother had gone in with a gun. And that they stole thousands of dollars. But that Tamerlan Tsarnaev then said that he wanted to eliminate witnesses to the crime.

Here is a quote from the investigators from this document saying that this murder was particularly grisly and the victims were bound, beaten, had their throats cut. In addition, the victims were covered with marijuana. The document also describes one of the three victims as being a close friend of Tsarnaev. And Todashev then told the investigators they spent more than an hour trying to clean up and erase any evidence of fingerprints.

Now, Todashev actually died. He was shot and killed during the course of giving this interview to investigators because U.S. officials said that he attacked an FBI agent in the room.

Now, the reason we have these unsealed documents is because of a court filing that's happening now having to do with a younger surviving Tsarnaev brother. As you mentioned, Fred, he is appealing his death sentence. And the district attorney says that this 2011 triple murder is still under investigation.

[16:45:14]

WHITFIELD: Oh my goodness. That's quite grisly.

CHEN: Yes. Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thank you so much. Natasha Chen. Appreciate it. We have so much more straight ahead in the NEWSROOM right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. So many studies show that too much screen time can be unhealthy especially for young people. But this week's top ten CNN Hero is teaming up with hospitals to make screen time healing time.

Today, Zach Wigal is making video games a part of recovery for sick kids all across the country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Suiting up.

ZACH WIGAL, CNN HERO: Sometimes people believe that video games are corrupting the minds of America's youth. But video games are incredible tool for helping kids find a source of fun and relief during the most stressful and difficult times.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To people who think the games are just games, they are so much more than that.

[16:50:05]

WIGAL: Nice. Okay, that's all you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't have to talk about me being sick. We can play the game because that's way more cool than having to talk about me being sick.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP) WHITFIELD: Zach provides sick children with gaming in 200 hospitals nationwide and in Canada. Go to cnnheroes.com to vote for him for CNN hero of the year or for any of your favorite top ten heroes.

And this touching reunion for an 11-year-old boy in Nashville, Tennessee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You all miss him a whole lot, right?

JORDAN HARLIN: Yes.

TROY HARLIN; PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS, NAVY: Miss you, too.

HARLIN: Dad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Makes you tear up every time something like this happens. Jordan Harlin got that wonderful surprise when his dad who is in the navy showed up at his middle school. Jordan's father has been deployed overseas for the last nine months. The first order of business for dad now that he is home, Jordan says he is looking forward to going fishing with dad. So cute.

All right, tonight, Lisa Ling is back with a brand new episode of "This Is Life". This time, she embeds with the NYPD and finds out what it takes to keep New York City safe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LISA LING, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND HOST, "THIS IS LIFE WITH LISA LING": According to the department, for every officer you can see, nearly as many are hidden from view, tucked away in the shadows in the space overhead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have always had a counter sniper capability because Times Square, it's kind of at the bottom of a very famous canyon, if you will, a concrete and glass canyon, but a canyon none the less.

After the Las Vegas sniper showed the kind of damage that could be done in a large crowd, did some technical things with help from the secret service with buildings so that we could mark zones and sectors of windows. So that if something happened, we'd be able to zero in on that building, that floor, that corner, equals that room, that office and so on.

LING: Using the Vegas attack as a blueprint for the worst case scenario, the counter snipers need a clear line of sight. And tonight for that reason, there's a full ban on all umbrellas in Times Square.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: "This Is Life" host, Lisa Ling, joining me right now. Lisa, New York City, so complicated. So, what are some of the biggest challenges that the NYPD faces as it tries to protect its city.

LING: Well, New York is sort of a Mecca, if you will. And it's incredibly challenging to protect the city. And you know, this episode is about terrorism. And often when people think about terrorism, they think about foreign cells conspiring to commit attacks in the U.S. and all over the world.

But in fact, the nature of terrorism has changed and evolved. And what organizations like the NYPD, the country's largest police force, have determined is that these days many terrorists' attacks are being planned by lone wolves who radicalize online. Often these people are disgruntled young men with grievances who conspired to attack certain places and employ a kind of ideology in their efforts to do so.

WHITFIELD: You were in the trenches with the NYPD last New Year's Eve. You talked about in that clip, you know, umbrellas. I remember that people just in the rain --

LING: Yes.

WHITFIELD: -- no matter what. But it's all an issue of security. So you know, this New Year's Eve just like any, I mean potentially very dangerous, threatening night. So, how do police, you know, really kind of get out in front to make sure that everyone remains safe?

LING: Well, they really do so by just exhibiting a massive show of force. I was actually surprised to hear that authorities receive a lot of information. They intercept quite a bit of people wanting to commit attacks on New York City on New Year's Eve for symbolic reasons obviously.

But as you saw from the clip, there are police officers, there are dozens of federal agencies in place, and they really restrict people who show up. I mean, they estimate that a million people are in Times Square. And people, once they go into those pens in the morning, they don't get out until after New Year's Eve. So, it's a massive effort and you'll see more about it -- more of it tonight.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And amazingly, people are very cooperative. They get what's at stake. You know, in general, counterterrorism techniques have evolved since 9/11, right. It takes the participation rather of everyone. And tell me why NYPD feels like it can count on most people's cooperation?

[16:55:10]

LING: Well, their strategy now is to try and build relationships with people, with communities so that they trust their -- the department enough to be able to communicate when they think things are awry. And so, the slogan is "See Something, Say Something".

And if you've been in New York City, you've probably seen it in the subway and around the city. The idea is if you see anything suspicious, give the hotline a call. It's routed to a call center. And if they deem that threat credible, they will dispatch a unit to go investigate. WHITFIELD: All right, Lisa Ling, fascinating view you're giving us. Thank you so much. Tune in tonight 10:00 for a brand-new episode of "This Is Life" with Lisa Ling right here on CNN.

And thank you so much for being with me all day and all weekend. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. The next hour of the NEWSROOM continues with Ana Cabrera right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks for joining us on this Sunday evening. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. And we're entering week two of historic impeachment hearings.