Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Interview with Mayor Bill de Blasio on Michael Bloomberg's Apology; Eight Witnesses to Testify This Week in Impeachment Inquiry; Hong Kong Protests Escalate with Gasoline Bombs and Arrows. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired November 17, 2019 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RODNEY REED: This is crazy.
LAVANDERA: Ed Lavandera, CNN, Bastrop, Texas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thank you for being here. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.
Breaking news on CNN, a bombshell admission and a complete about face from the former mayor of New York City and now potential candidate for president. Michael Bloomberg says he's sorry. He's the man who for years stood by the stop-and-frisk policy he pursued at the New York City Police Department. Bloomberg had always said it helped lower the murder rate. Critics called the policing tact pure racism because the rate of blacks and Latinos who were stopped was far higher than whites.
The current mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is here with me. The promise to fight back against racial profiling was central to the campaign of Bill de Blasio and helped propel him into the office following Bloomberg's tenure.
First, I want you to listen to this statement from Mayor Michael Bloomberg earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), FORMER NEW YORK MAYOR: I got something important really wrong. I didn't understand that back then. The full impact that stops were having on the black and Latino communities. Now, hindsight is 20-20, but as crime continued to come down as we reduced stops and as it continued to come down during the next administration, to its credit, I now see that we could and should have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops. I wish we had, and I'm sorry that we didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: And now we have Mr. Mayor de Blasio here with us. Thank you for coming on in.
MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK: Thank you, Ana.
CABRERA: First, I just want to get your reaction to this apology today. Do you believe it was sincere?
DE BLASIO: Ana, you know, I'm looking at that and I just have to say people aren't stupid. Look, they can figure out whether someone is honestly addressing an issue or whether they're acting out of convenience. For years so many of us said when he was mayor of New York City this is hurting people, this is creating division. It's creating a rift between our police and our community. And we said, in fact, that if our police and our community cannot have a partnership we're going to be less safe.
Lo and behold, when I came into office we absolutely abolished the approach that Michael Bloomberg had taken to stop and frisk. The city has gotten safer six years in a row, and the relationship between police and community is healing. So there are many points where he could have acknowledged this. It seems awfully strange that it took until now.
CABRERA: I just spoke to, last hour, somebody who would be the co- chair of his national campaign if he ends up getting into the race, a mayor from a city in South Carolina, from Columbia, South Carolina, Mayor Steve Benjamin, and I questioned him about this change from Bloomberg. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR STEPHEN BENJAMIN (D), COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA: I saw contrition. I saw -- I'm a big believer in there's strength in humility. And I saw a man admitting that he's wrong. This issue is an issue that so many people have struggled with, have struggled with in a deeply heartfelt way. And I talked to a number of people at CCC, Christian Cultural Center, today as to how this might have affected them and affected their families over time. So it's important at the very least that the mayor stepped up, had this conversation and put it on the table.
And I believe it's the first in a number of conversations that need to be had with people not just here in New York but across the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: I think it's fair to question the timing and a lot of others are also questioning the timing tonight of this apology from Bloomberg. But I guess, bottom line if he's, you know, now changing his position and publicly, you know, putting it out there and on a large platform, to a position that you support.
DE BLASIO: Right.
CABRERA: Are you being too harsh too quick?
DE BLASIO: No, look, I'm always glad when someone has the ability to apologize. I am contesting why now and why under this circumstance. But the much bigger point here is stop and frisk was discredited years and years ago. I respect my colleague Steve Benjamin a lot, but let's be clear. Years ago in this city, beginning of this decade, there were many of us saying this was broken, it wasn't working, it was discriminatory, it was harming families, it was holding us back.
Michael Bloomberg wouldn't listen. And it was not just stop and frisk. He opposed a law to ban racial profiling. He opposed a law to create an independent inspector general for our police department for accountability. This was part of a pattern. And when people raised concerns, he didn't listen. So, I would like to remind you also, you know who's been the biggest booster of stop and frisk in recent years? Donald Trump.
And if Michael Bloomberg couldn't find it in his heart during his own mayoralty to acknowledge mistake, well, surely when Trump started speaking up for stop and frisk that would have been the time for Mike Bloomberg to come forward and say wait a minute, I was wrong and we've got years of evidence. My administration has certainly proven it was a mistake in policy. It was counterproductive because we've gotten so much safer since.
[19:05:02]
Bloomberg also believed in arrest. You know, last year we had 150,000 fewer arrests than the last year of his term, and we got safer. We had less mass incarceration. So let's be clear --
CABRERA: But he's saying, I am sorry, I was wrong. And he repeated that multiple times today.
DE BLASIO: And I'm happy about that. But again, there were so many chances to do that.
CABRERA: I hear you. How do you think New Yorkers are receiving this apology?
DE BLASIO: As I said, you know, I think there are millions of New Yorkers who were hurt by this policy for years and years. And I think maybe some will forgive, but none will forget. This was absolutely divisive policy. By the way, our police officers were hurt by it, too. Our police officers want to have a relationship with communities and stop and frisk made it impossible.
You're talking about parents, grandparents, watching while kids, particularly young men of color, were treated like suspects to a crime they never committed. The personal anger, the sense of violation. The sense that young people are being denigrated who we're supposed to be uplifting, who were supposed to be giving them self-esteem. Well, you know what, stop and frisk, as a systematic policy, Ana, was used on a vast scale on purpose, systematically destroyed the self-esteem of our young people.
CABRERA: And I know this is incredibly personal for you as a parent to an African-American son. Let me just take a step away from stop and frisk for a moment and talk bigger picture and the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy for the 2020 election.
DE BLASIO: Yes.
CABRERA: You were out on the campaign trail as you were pursuing the 2020 candidacy as well.
DE BLASIO: Sure.
CABRERA: Do you think there's an appetite nationally for Bloomberg?
DE BLASIO: I don't think there's an appetite in the Democratic Party for a billionaire at a point in history where we're finally coming to grips with massive income inequality and where the rich keep getting richer. And I think people all over this country and members of this party want an answer. They don't want the status quo. So a guy who epitomizes that status quo doesn't make sense.
A guy who was wrong on these profound issues of racial injustice and police accountability, I don't see a fit at all. We've got a lot of good candidates. And most of our candidates are much closer to the grassroots of our party and of our nation. And I think they'll fair a lot better for that reason.
CABRERA: You tried.
DE BLASIO: Sure.
CABRERA: And you had to drop out. We've seen other former mayors of New York City like Mayor Giuliani try and he didn't obviously go the distance.
DE BLASIO: Yes.
CABRERA: I just wonder --
DE BLASIO: After he was mayor, yes.
CABRERA: I just wondered, is there something about being in the position of the mayor of this city, of New York City, the biggest in the country that puts you in a position of being too polarizing to make a successful bid to, you know, speak to the rest of the country? What do you think?
DE BLASIO: I think less and less. Only one mayor that I know of have ever ran while serving as mayor before me, that was a half century ago. So I don't think we have much to judge by honestly. But I do think the country is less divided than often is portrayed. I think this country with every passing year, we have more shared experience, people are traveling, more families are spread out. There's a lot that's starting to make us more one culture rather than a series of regions.
So there's real political division, but in cultural terms, I think we're actually slowly but surely becoming a more connected country. So I don't think the notion that the mayor of the largest city in the country, you know, a place that represents all of America in so many ways, couldn't get a fair hearing. No. In fact, a lot of people -- I mean, I was out in Iowa and rural areas, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada, and folks are raising the same kind of concerns my constituents in New York are raising.
I think what it comes down to is they want change, right? If 2020 isn't a change election I don't know what is.
CABRERA: You dropped out of the race in September, and now we're seeing other candidates just jumping in.
DE BLASIO: Yes. Right.
CABRERA: Deval Patrick, for example, maybe, you know, Michael Bloomberg. Do you have regrets? Do you feel like maybe you dropped out too soon?
DE BLASIO: No, Ana. I think every candidate has to be honest about, you know, their fortunes. I felt I had something to say, I put it out there. There were a lot of other good candidates. Clearly, you know, it wasn't connecting and the resources weren't there. There's a point where you have to say, I gave it my shot, but I'm going to continue to speak out, I'm going to continue to run, you know, the greatest city in this country.
And I think you have to be honest with yourself. And maybe this gets back to the beginning of this conversation. Self-awareness and the ability to hear what other people are saying, a leader has to be able to in real time know if they've made a mistake. I've said very publicly for example in New York City I wish I'd done some things differently on the homelessness issue. I'm trying to fix that in real time right now.
Because people offered real valuable criticisms and I didn't talk about it, you know, six years after being mayor. I heard it in real time and I'm having to make corrections and adjustments. When you're a candidate, same thing. You've got to listen to what the people are saying. And sometimes it's your moment and sometimes it's not. But it can't be an ego exercise. It has to be an actual dialogue with the people.
[19:10:02]
CABRERA: Mayor de Blasio, thank you very much for being here.
DE BLASIO: Thank you, Ana.
CABRERA: Good to have you.
Coming up, the pressure building on a key witness in the impeachment inquiry set to go before Congress and the country this week. The big questions facing E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and how they directly involve the president.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: Over the past week you've heard a lot of names, a lot of dates, a lot of details in the impeachment inquiry. It can be overwhelming, it can be complicated. But all you really need to do is go back to this central question. Did the president of the United States try to bribe Ukraine into digging up dirt on his political rival?
This week eight more people will go before the cameras and Congress and the American people to help investigators answer that question. They are the people behind the scenes, the diplomats and civil servants and security officials who went to work and never predicted that they'd wake up one day and see their faces splashed across TV sets and newspapers, but that's where they find themselves because of what they witnessed. And it is their knowledge that could determine the fate of a U.S. president.
Joining us now is CNN senior political analyst and former adviser to four presidents David Gergen, and former FBI senior intelligence adviser Phil Mudd.
David, we have some breaking news today. The president went on Twitter, attacked another witness set to testify this week. An aide to Vice President Mike Pence who said in her deposition that Trump's Ukraine call was unusual and inappropriate.
[19:15:04]
And here's the president's tweet tonight, "Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the 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."
David, to label a government worker as a never Trumper simply because they testified about their honest feelings, is the message here you're on your own?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Very much so. And if you say anything negative about me you're going to be attacked publicly, and I'm going to flog you. Listen, I don't think we -- we don't know all the facts here but we know enough to say this, that the woman that the president disparaged today is very close to the vice president of the United States. And she would not have testified up there unless one of two things was true. That she was -- she really felt she had to tell the truth and she wanted to -- you know, and you have to appreciate that, or possibly she feels that the vice president wants a little distance from all of this.
I imagine it's the first, but it -- we shouldn't be surprised. But we -- but I am. That after the president got himself in so much trouble attacking the ambassador, Miss Yovanovitch, the president comes right back and tweet -- and attack another person, another woman.
CABRERA: Yes, he's staying true to his signature there.
Phil, can you comment on this? CNN asked the vice president's office for comment on Trump's attack and they declined to defend her, just saying she's with the State Department. So it's not just the president now. I mean, the vice president has been roped into this and nothing. What's your reaction?
PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Remember, too -- I'm sorry.
CABRERA: Go ahead, Phil.
GERGEN: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Phil. Yes, please.
MUDD: The origins of this by the press reports were a CIA, and listen, I was once a CIA officer who came out with the original whistleblower report. This is why I think, Ana, this is significant. You have multiple people working in departments of the U.S. government. The vice president's office, the CIA.
What the president is doing, and this is the risk I think that he is taking on, I'm not sure he realizes it, is he is challenging both the CIA director and the vice president not to defend their own employees. At some point those officers -- I know the CIA director, I don't know Vice President Pence, but at some point those cabinet level officers I think are going to have to look in the mirror and say, when do I have to get out because my junior officer going before the Congress doesn't have the capability to do this?
When do I have to come out in public and say Mr. President, I'm a member of your cabinet or at the cabinet level, you cannot do this to one of my officers? The president is risking some divisions within his cabinet by attacking junior officers in the government.
CABRERA: It's also interesting that, I mean, we've been hearing from these career officials and these officials who are coming forward, were also told don't talk to Congress, do not testify. But yet they -- you know, maybe it was out of duty chose to do so.
David, do you think that it's possible this could be just the beginning, that others perhaps will get courage from seeing these other officials, you know, stand up to the president of the United States and the executive branch and come forward?
GERGEN: Well, some will feel intimidated, and that was one purpose of the president's, you know, tweet a couple of days ago. He wants to prevent people from doing that. And not everybody, you know, with family and other thing and a career is going to have that -- is going to want to step in and risk putting all of that at risk. And so some people will feel intimidated to stay out of this.
I think that the ones who are stepping forward are doing it out of a sense of patriotism. They believe that the country operates best with truth, and, you know, they put their -- they've dedicated their lives to trying to promote the best interests of the country. So you have to say by and large I personally think that this whole episode is going to remind a lot of Americans who have been skeptical about people who worked for a career in government, that there's some terrific people there.
We went through this once before in recent years in the Oklahoma City bombing when President Clinton was in office. And people -- and there was a building full of government employees, and when those employees went and talked to the cameras and explained what was going on in their lives, who they lost and everything like that, their families talked, the country was enormously admiring, enormously admiring of who they were and the quality. And I think -- I hope we will see this same extension of approval and support for these brave people who are stepping forward.
CABRERA: Phil, David, we're getting more breaking news right now as we speak. You know, of all the people to testify this week, the main event is really on Wednesday. That testimony of E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and that's because of a number of witnesses who have now testified. Sondland said he was acting at Trump's direction in his dealings with Ukraine.
[19:20:02]
We're just now learning in the last few minutes that "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting Sondland will testify he kept several Trump administration officials apprised of his efforts to get Ukraine to launch investigations. And the "Journal" says those officials include acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Phil, your reaction?
MUDD: This is -- this is like watching a chess match. I think this is significant, but only if one thing happens. That is we're talking about a lot of government officials no American has ever heard of coming up and testifying about stuff we kind of know happened from leaked transcripts. The president pressed the Ukrainians to investigate a political rival and withheld money to do so.
What the Democrats need, I think, to get any traction whether you like him or not is to get a name figure, that is somebody like Mulvaney or John Bolton, the former National Security adviser, to speak. If this presses those officials to come out or if this gives Democrats ammunition to press named officials to come out I think is significant. Because all these lower officials are doing is confirming what we already know with names that Americans don't recognize. I don't think the Democrats can get too far unless they get names on the record.
GERGEN: Can I happily disagree? Look, I think it's absolutely right and until we hear from Bolton and Mulvaney and Giuliani that we're not going to have the full story, that Republicans can make a play where you don't have any direct evidence and so forth and so on. We don't have that kind of direct evidence because the Republicans are blocking them from testifying.
At the same time, suddenly because of what we learned over the weekend from a young man named David Holmes about sitting in a restaurant in Kiev and Sondland, Gordon Sondland, the ambassador, calling the president, said he had to call the president to update him, called, according to Holmes, suddenly there in that restaurant calls the president, gets through to him. The president's voice is so loud over his iPhone, why he was using that is another question. The president has to hold the phone away from his ear and these other
people at the table then hear the president talking to him. The first thing the president wants to know is, what about the investigations? Did you get it done? And Sondland says they love your ass, you'd get anything you want done. That would be the most direct and I think the most explosive testimony we've had so far.
CABRERA: And remember David Holmes perhaps wasn't the only person who overheard that conversation at the table because again the president reportedly was talking so loud and Sondland was holding the phone away from his ear. Everybody in that phone could hear. We know of at least one other person beside David Holmes who heard that as well.
David Gergen and Phil Mudd, we've got so much more to discuss. As always, we'll have to leave it there tonight. Thank you both for being here.
MUDD: Thank you.
GERGEN: Thank you.
CABRERA: Breaking news out of Hong Kong where we are seeing some of the most dramatic scenes yet in that ongoing protest that have besieged the city now for weeks. Demonstrators had been hurling gasoline bombs and bricks and shooting arrows at police officers. We'll get a live report next.
[19:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: Updating you on our breaking news out of Hong Kong. It is all out chaos as police and protesters face off at a university in that city. Protesters have set the main entrance on fire to keep officers from entering. They've also been hurling gasoline bombs, bricks and shooting arrows. And police are responding with tear gas and water cannons, and now threatening the use of live rounds.
Let's go live to CNN's Paula Hancocks in Hong Kong for us.
And Paula, it sounds like it is just really escalating there. Tell us what's going on.
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, just in the last couple of minutes or so, it was quite a remarkable scene. We saw dozens of protesters emerging from just over there. It appears as though they started running cross that road and then ran just behind us. It looks as though, and I cannot confirm this but it seriously looks as though they were trying to stake the campus. Now when police realized what they were doing they then started firing tear gas at them and they have just dispersed in a number of different directions. So it's difficult to say where they are at this point.
So certainly that was fairly unexpected considering the campuses supposedly on complete lockdown. No one allowed in or out at this point. So it just shows that this situation is very fluid, that it is changing minute by minute. We have had in the previous hour a very calm moment that -- appears to be a break (INAUDIBLE) protesters. So what we also saw was a number of fires being lit by protesters. This was really the culmination of six months of pro-democracy, anti- government protests, see how it started peacefully. They have escalated over time and now we can see they are particularly violent.
Police saying that if the protesters have been using petrol bombs and what they believe to be a lethal weapon, the bow and arrow, then they may be forced to use minimum force or even live fire. Now we understand that hasn't happened at this point so we have no reports of it happening. But it certainly would be a serious escalation -- Ana.
CABRERA: OK. Paula Hancocks, thank you for that reporting. Please stay safe and as well as our crews there.
Quick break, we're back in just a moment.
[19:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:33:22] ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: New details tonight about what happened after President Trump finished his now infamous call with the President of Ukraine on July 25th. A former national security official, Tim Morrison, told lawmakers in his closed door deposition he was told that the transcript of Trump's call was moved to a highly classified server by mistake. Morrison who was listening in as that call happened also acknowledged there was nothing said on the call that met the requirements to put that transcript in a highly secure server.
And that brings us to your weekend Presidential brief with CNN national security analyst Samantha Vinograd. This is a segment, of course, we bring to you every weekend with the most pressing national security issues President Trump will face tomorrow.
So Sam, Morrison expected to testify publicly on Tuesday. How credible is this testimony, this closed door testimony in which he said moving this transcript to this highly classified server was a mistake?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Anything is possible. But this is hard to imagine, Ana. The executive secretary or exec secs as we call them, their job is to be meticulous. Their job is to be detailed oriented. And they don't have the prerogative to just move contents of a call, for example, to a cold war server. Everything that they do requires authorization in writing normally. And several steps in authorization would have been needed to transfer this content onto the cold war server.
CABRERA: Morrison also testified that U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland bragged he could call the President any time he wanted. That is a quote. How significant is this?
VINOGRAD: Well, it is significant these investigators would want to know what happened on the several calls that Morrison says Sondland claimed to have had with the President. But it's worth remembering, Ana, ambassadors don't typically have a direct line to the President. And there's a reason for that. Even seasoned ambassadors, their perspective has to be vetted by the national security council. and integrated into broader package of information for the President. That way the NSC can present the President with the full picture.
What we are learning is that President Trump relied on ambassador Sondland who by the way was not confirm by the Senate to work on Ukraine, has no background into anti-corruption and Fiona Hill said that he went into his own meetings without getting appropriately briefed. But for some reason President Trump prepped with Sondland rather than his own experts.
This really throws cold-water on the President's claim that he was really focused on the corruption of Ukraine and rooting it out. If that was the case, he would have prepped with his own experts. And people like Fiona Hill and lieutenant colonel Vindman, they would have a direct line to President Trump.
[19:35:51] CABRERA: Hill and Vindman both testified in this next week. Both of them connected today the national security council. Vindman still serves there. Fiona Hill is a former national security council advisor. How key is their public testimony?
VINOGRAD: Well, let's just remember who these people are. You don't land a job at the NSC very easily. Even this administration, you have to go through a very careful vetting process. Hill and Vindman were hand picked by President Trump's personnel team to serve the President. That was based both on their reliability and their expertise. So President Trump's own team thought they were reliable enough and expert enough to work in this White House. We will see what the President tweets about while they are testifying but that is worth keeping in mind.
Now Hill and Vindman are significant because they have already testified about concerns they raised within the White House. But more importantly their testimony is going to really setup and sandwich Sondland. Just from their closed door depositions we already haven't testifying that Sondland said that there were conditionalities on both the White House visit and security assistance. So Sondland already knows he either has to call Hill and Vindman liars or he has own up that he did place these conditionalities on these official U.S. government acts.
CABRERA: How do you come these three separate testimonies, you know, coming into play, making a difference, given Vindman's testimony is on Tuesday. You have Sondland's testimony on Wednesday and then Fiona Hill's on Thursday.
VINOGRAD: Well, as (INAUDIBLE), Ana, I'm pretty concerned that Sondland is operating. He is a walking advertisement for foreign intelligence surveillance. That he is still meeting with European officials. He did that last week. So that is a little bit concerning for all of us. To date Sondland has been a treasure-trove for Trump. By working
through ambassador Sondland Trump has been able to put kind of an official imprimatur on his political investigations. And now Sondland is faced with a choice. He could either continue to parrot the President's talking points about how nothing improper happened even though he has already said that he is concerned by what's going on. And again, he will have to say Hill, Vindman, Taylor Holmes, all those witnesses were lying or he can talk whether he had direct guidance from the President on all these phone calls about the conditionalities he expressed to the Ukrainians.
CABRERA: All right. Sam Vinograd, as always. Thank you very much.
Coming up the British press is calling it a car crash of an interview. Queen Elizabeth's son Prince Andrew under fire for how he answered questions about his friendship with convicted offender Jeffrey Epstein.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:42:26] CABRERA: He doesn't hug, he doesn't sweat. These are just some of the bizarre things we didn't know we needed to know about Britain's Prince Andrew the second son of Queen Elizabeth, uncle to Princes William and Harry. These odd revelations surfaced in a BBC interview broadcast last night about Prince Andrew's friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Now the duke of York willingly sat down to be quizzed about staying at Epstein's New York City mansion amid repeated accusations by Virginia Roberts Giuffre. She has claimed that Epstein forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was just 17 years old. The royals responses were awkward at best.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just trying to work this out because you said you went to break up the relationship, and yet you stayed at that New York mansion several days. I'm wondering how --
PRINCE ANDREW, QUEEN ELIZABETH'S SON: But I was doing a number of other things while I was there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What you were staying at the house of a convicted sex offender.
PRINCE ANDREW: It was a convenient place to stay. I mean, I have gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day with a benefit of all the hindsight that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honorable and right thing to do. And I admit fully that my judgment was probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable, but that's just the way it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: CNN's royal commentator Victoria Arbiter is here with more on this.
Victoria, how surprised were you that Prince Andrew even did this interview? And do you think the queen knew about it?
VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Well, as far as we understand the queen knew that the interview was going to happen but she certainly didn't approve the final cut. I don't think she know the extent of this interview, certainly. And I think had she known where they were planning to go with this interview, she would have said I think we need to think about this a little bit more.
You just played a brief sound clip and yet that is just one example of a complete 50 minutes of a complete and mitigated disaster. Now anybody that cover of all family or it follows royal circles, when we heard this interview was even going to happen everyone was saying this is very bad idea. There's just no part of this seems to be a good idea. And watching it unfold, it just proved to be the disaster that we would all anticipated.
CABRERA: Well, let's watch another clip where he addresses a specific allegation of his accuser.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was very specific about that night. She described dancing with you, and you profusely sweating, and that she went onto have a bath probably --
[19:45:11] PRINCE ANDREW: There's a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don't sweat or I didn't sweat at the time. And that was -- yes, I didn't sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the (INAUDIBLE) war when I was shot at. And I simply -- it was almost impossible for me to sweat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: OK. What did you make of that answer in.
ARBITER: I just feel like we came away with so many more questions than answers, didn't we? I mean, this was Prince Andrew's opportunity to really distance himself from Jeffrey Epstein. Now we do have to be clear Prince Andrew has not been charged, convicted. He is not even being investigated at this point. But what he is guilty of is appalling judgment when it comes to friends.
Now he does address the fact that in 2010 he looks back and sees it wasn't terribly sensible to stay at the home of a convicted sex offender. But where he really failed in this interview in two areas actually that struck me the most.
Number one, he showed absolutely no remorse or regret over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. And number two, not at any point did he mention the victims. He didn't show any sympathy, any compassion. So when we are looking at damage control the monarchy is at the end of
the day a business. This is just did further damage because we saw a man not showing an ounce of humility, regret, remorse, compassion, sympathy. These are all things that any PR expert would have said this is what we got to hit every step of the way.
CABRERA: And so, quickly if you will, how do you see the royal family dealing with the PR aspects of this going forward because we also heard him say he would testify to this in court if push came to shove.
ARBITER: Well, this is where the (INAUDIBLE) now is going to last many weeks. I think it is already overshadowing Prince Charles and Camilla to New Zealand. Prince Andrew has been adamant enough to say he plans to continues doing the work that he does. And this is the thing. He lives in his privileged where he is just sort of this entitlement makes him think that he can continue with business as usual. It just cannot happen. It's too damaging for him to remain at the center of public duties.
CABRERA: Victoria Arbiter, always good to have you her. Thankyou very much.
Coming up what does it take to protect the biggest city in America from terrorists before the big new year's eve bash in Times Square?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The substance, what was that it was found in? It was just thrown into the garbage bag? Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But when a call comes in, the mood changes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:51:25] CABRERA: It is the cultural and financial center of the United States and also a big target for terrorist. So what does it take to keep New Yorkers safe when there's more than a million people packed into Times Square for new years' eve?
Lisa Ling went to find out. Here's a preview of a brand new episode of "THIS IS LIFE."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA LING, CNN HOST, THIS IS LIFE (voice-over): 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 over head.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have had a counter sniper capability because times square is a at the bottom of a very famous canyon, if you will. A concrete and glass canyon, but a canyon nonetheless. After the Las Vegas the damage that can be done in a large crowd. That's some technical things with help from the secret service with buildings so that we can mark zones and sectors of windows. So that if something happens, we would be able to zero in on that building that floor that corner equals that room that office and so on.
LING: Using the Las Vegas attack as a blueprint for the worst case scenario, the counter snipers need a clear line of site. And tonight for that reason there's a full ban on all umbrellas in times square.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CABRERA: Lisa ling joins us now.
Lisa, you were out in trenches with the NYPD last new year's eve. I mean, this seems like a daunting security task. How do they do it?
LING: Well, the answer is a massive show of force. As you heard in the clip about a million people show up in times square for the new years eve. And it surprised me to learn that day is considered to be the highest threat level day of the whole year. So there are hundreds of NYPD officers both on the ground and in the buildings and dozens of federal agents. And in many ways it's considered the safest place in the world because it's so heavily fortified.
But on a daily basis, you know, when you think about terrorism often you think about cells or groups around the world conspiring to commit attacks in the U.S. or around the world. But those are happening far more infrequently than before.
The face of terrorism has changed quite a bit. And these days terrorists attacks are happening more by lone wolves. People who often are found to be aggrieved or disenfranchised. And so it's actually more difficult for organizations like the NYPD to try and track these people down.
CABRERA: You actually visited a terror hot line center. Let's look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LING: For everyone who sees something and says something, calls are routed to a quiet cubicle lined office building in the financial district. It's here where a handful of detectives process all terrorism related tips across the five burros.
So sergeant, your team fields hundreds of calls week to week. Can you give me examples of what calls would warrant further investigation?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Suspicious package. Something that sounds out of the ordinary. Just based on a phone call. We have to determine whether or not it's something that has to be investigated further.
LING: Most tips on the hotline end without incident. And today, the city appears quiet.
[19:55:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now this substance, what was it in that was it was found in? It was just thrown into the garbage bag? Thank you.
LING: But when a call comes in, the mood changes. (END VIDEOTAPE)
CABRERA: Lisa, it's captivating to see behind the scenes there. What was that experience like for you?
LING: Well, it was pretty terrifying when the people in the call center believed that there was plutonium in the garbage can because they didn't know exactly how much was in there. It turns out it was some medical waste that was mistakenly thrown in to a garbage can. So it wasn't the kind of threat that they thought it was going to be.
But these days the police department is relying on citizens. You know probably know in New York City in the subways and all over the street you will signs that see something say something. And so they are hoping that when people see anything remotely suspicious they will call in to the hotline. And if the threat it deemed credible they will send a unit out to investigate.
CABRERA: Just in the next 20 seconds or so for this answer. I mean, how many calls do they get a day or week, do you know?
LING: They get thousands of calls a year. I was actually shocked by the number. So again, if they deem it credible they will send a unit. Just really incredible comprehensive work that is involved in the counter terrorism effort in New York City.
CABRERA: OK. Lisa ling, we look forward to the episode tonight. Thank you very much for the insight.
But sure to tune in for that brand new episode of "THIS IS LIFE" with Lisa Ling tonight at 10:00. here on CNN.
That does it for me. I'm Ana Cabrera. Coming up next it's Chris Cuomo with the CNN special "The White House in crisis: the impeachment inquiry." And it all get started after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
