Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Witnesses: Trump's Request To Ukraine Inappropriate; Volker And Morrison Called As Republican Witnesses; Gordon Sondland To Testify On Wednesday; British P.M. & Chief Rival Duel In First Televised Debate; China Condemns U.S. Hong Kong Human Rights Bill; Group of Demonstrators Remain In Standoff; Group of Demonstrators Remain in Standoff; Amazon Deforestation Rate Hits Highest Level in a Decade . Aired 1-2a ET

Aired November 20, 2019 - 01:00   ET

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

[01:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm John Vause. Coming up this hour on CNN NEWSROOM. Bigly failed, Republicans were hoping their star witness would bust open the case for impeachment but this former special envoy to Ukraine added to and confirmed much of the evidence against the U.S. president.

Big threat, Beijing warns of retaliation if a U.S. Senate bill supporting pro-democracy protesters is passed into law. And big disaster, how Brazil's President destroyed almost 10,000 square kilometers of the Amazon rainforest in less than a year.

Day three of the Trump impeachment hearings featuring the first public testimony from witnesses with direct knowledge of the July phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, but the main event could come on Wednesday. That's when three more officials will be called to testify.

And that includes Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, who at first in closed-door hearing said he knew nothing of Donald Trump's plan to withhold military aid to Ukraine only to later change that testimony.

Four officials testified on Tuesday and all of them characterize the Trump-Ukraine dealing as inappropriate at the very least. CNN's Jessica Schneider has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Four current and former Trump administration officials testifying during day three of public impeachment hearings, all expressing differing degrees of disappointment and disapproval of the President's July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky where Trump pushed for investigations into the 2016 election and the Biden's. TIM MORRISON, FORMER TOP RUSSIA EXPERT, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I was hoping for a more full-throated statement of support from the President concerning President Zelensky's reform agenda.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS, ADVISER TO U.S. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I found the July 25 phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involves discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.

KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE: In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former president -- Vice President Biden. I saw them is very different. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently. And had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN, TOP UKRAINE EXPERT, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: It was inappropriate, it was improper for the President to request and to demand an investigation into a political opponent.

SCHNEIDER: Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman still serving as the top Ukrainian expert on the National Security Council, the most outspoken. He's the one who twice reported his concerns about the call and recounted the July 10th White House me With Ukrainian officials where the expectation of investigations was made clear by E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

VINDMAN: Ambassador Sondland said that in order to get a White House meeting, the Ukrainians would have to provide a deliverable, which is investigations, specific investigations.

SCHNEIDER: Republicans didn't dispute the facts, but instead question Colonel Vindman's abilities.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): So your boss had concerns about your judgment. Your former boss, Dr. Hill had concerns about your judgment. Your colleagues had concerns about your judgment. And your colleagues felt that there were times when you leaked information.

SCHNEIDER: Congressman Jordan potentially taking his cues from this tweet from the official White House account sent out just before 10:00 a.m. Tim Morrison, Alex Vindman's former boss testified in his deposition that he had concerns about Vindman's judgment. Vindman quickly countered.

VINDMAN: Representative Jordan, I guess I'll start by reading Dr. Hill's own words as she attested to in my last evaluation that was dated middle of July right before she left. Alex is a top one percent military officer and the best army officer I've worked with in my 15 years of government service. He's brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment.

SCHNEIDER: Tim Morrison pushed back in the second part of the day saying he didn't want his words from his closed-door testimony weaponized. MORRISON: I have great respect for my former colleagues from the NSC,

and the rest of the interagency. I'm not here today to question their character or integrity.

SCHNEIDER: CNN has learned Colonel Vindman has asked the U.S. Army about the safety of his family since he's come under attack by President Trump and his allies. The Army does not believe there is an imminent security threat according to an official. He paid tribute to his late father at the end of his opening statement, assuring his family they'll all be OK amidst the backlash on him.

VINDMAN: Dad, I'm sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals -- talking to our elected professionals as proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.

[01:05:11]

SCHNEIDER: Former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former NSC official Tim Morrison were called as Republican witnesses, but they did little to bolster Republican talking points. Volker amending earlier testimony now recalling Sondland talking about investigations.

VOLKER: At the end of the meeting, I do recall having seen some of the other testimony. I believe Ambassador Sondland did raise the point of investigations in a generic way. This was after the meeting was already wrapping up. And I think all of us thought it was inappropriate, and the conversation did not pick up from there. It was -- the meeting was over.

SCHNEIDER: Top republican Devin Nunes used his time to bat back Democrat's new focus on bribery by the White House.

REP. DEVIN NUNES (D-CA): Did anyone ever asked you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?

MORRISON: No, sir.

NUNES: Did anyone at the White House ever asked you to bribe or extort anything out of anyone at any time?

VOLKER: No, sir.

SCHNEIDER: Jessica Schneider, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: Live now to Los Angeles and Ron Brownstein, CNN Senior Political Analyst and Senior Editor at the Atlantic. OK, Ron, you remember last week Kurt Volker, you know, the former Special Envoy to Ukraine, he was the go-to guy for Republicans, in Volkow we trust, if anyone we can be believed, it's Volker. He was the star witness.

But on Tuesday, he amended his closed-door testimony saying, you know, he now believes it was a quid pro quo, the White House making military aid in return for Ukraine investigations. He also went on to praise Joe Biden. He described the theory about Biden which Giuliani was pushing is being self-serving and not credible. Which raises the question, what exactly was the President referring to when he tweeted a few hours ago, a great day Republicans, a great day for our country. It seem like another bad day for the President, another bad day for Republicans, and a bad day for the entire country.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, these two witnesses in the afternoon along with Colonel -- Lieutenant Colonel Vindman in the morning, specified, you know, two very concrete examples of the quid pro quo involving Ambassador Sondland.

First, we a testimony from Volker and Vindman about the July meeting at the White House where they both testified that Sondland, you know, indicated that the Ukrainians would need to open the investigation and the president saw it in order to get -- in order to get a White House meeting.

And then in the afternoon, you know, with Mr. Morrison who again was a Republican witness, made the single most -- the single most damning moment of the hearings so far when he said, yes, you know, after a meeting in September, that Ambassador Sondland told him that he had informed the Ukrainians that not only the meeting, but the military aid that they were desperately seeking and waiting to help them, you know, repel Russian aggression was contingent on them publicly announcing the investigations, and this was a Republican witness.

Certainly, it could not have set up, you know, bigger stakes for Ambassador Sondland when he testifies tomorrow.

VAUSE: And very quickly, with that in mind, having Volker sort of essentially had this change of heart, amend his testimony, is that a preview of what we can expect with Sondland when he appears?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, the people I talked to today said we have no idea what to expect when Sondland appears tomorrow. I mean, you know, Volker's revised position was a little difficult to kind of really, you know, parse and believe that he didn't see investigating Burisma as investigating Biden, and then suddenly the scales dropped from his eyes when everybody else talked about it, but Sondland is at even more difficult position. Because not only did he bragged repeatedly to others about his access to the President, we have multiple witnesses testifying, starting on Thursday, about his phone call with the president immediately after the July 25 call.

So -- I mean, the idea that he -- that he can go out now and say, well, I didn't really mean any of it. I was kind of making all this up on my own which is what the Republicans have sort of been insinuating the last few days, that's not an option for him.

And of course, as we've said before, the backdrop of all of this is that only a few days ago, Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress. So obviously, the stakes are very high for Ambassador Sondland. We've got a lot more than he bargained for, as you said with his campaign contributions. You know, unlike last week, the President showed some incredible

restraint. Not one nasty tweet about any witnesses as they were testifying. That was actually left to the official White House Twitter account which attacked Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, the White House Ukraine expert who testified about the President's phone call.

This is a tweet. "Tim Morrison, Alexander Vindman's former boss testified in his deposition that he has concerns about Vindman's judgment." Don't worry about the fact that, you know, Morrison walked that back and Vindman produce that stellar workplace review. Why is this stuff on the official White House Twitter account?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, I think Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is kind of at the conservative version intersectionality because not only is he a career official, but he is an immigrant. And you know, it is striking that you know, he is -- he was the target today, not only from the President, but if you look at the Twitter feed of his son, Donald Trump Jr., he was talking about court martialing him, and a dishonorable discharge and, you know, re-tweeting very vicious comments about him.

The White House distributed talking points apparently today to Republicans to try to discredit him. There was a point where the white -- where the Republican Counsel on the Committee focused on this idea of Ukraine offering him a job as defense minister, not clear how serious that was, but when out of his way to --

[01:10:30]

VAUSE: Actually, in fact, it was interrupted. Just so -- we have that. I want to play that actually because you brought it up (INAUDIBLE). That was actually put out by the Assistant to the President Dan Scavino. He actually tweeted that just a small part of the clip that he was offered this job as defense minister in Ukraine. Let's listen to the clip that they -- that they put out on Twitter. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE CASTOR, REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY: When you were -- you went to Ukraine for the inauguration.

VINDMAN: Correct.

CASTOR: At any point during that trip, did Mr. DANYLYUK offer you a position of defense minister with the Ukrainian government?

VINDMAN: He did.

CASTOR: And how many times did he do that? I believe it was three times.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: And if you wonder why there's such a tight edit at the end there, it's because well, this is what the White House left out. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASTOR: And do you have any reason why he asked you to do that?

VINDMAN: I don't know, but every single time I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command, and the appropriate counterintelligence folks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: You know, there's political spin and then there's lying by omission, and that was a deliberate, misleading attempt to smear his reputation.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, to me, the biggest tell of the entire line of questioning was not in that clip, it was when the council asked Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did he made the offer speaking in Ukrainian or in English? I mean, he almost could have like bought a billboard saying, you know, where -- he's suggesting that your loyalty is not to the United States because you speak a foreign language.

Tonight on Fox, Newt Gingrich was saying he was -- he was emblematic of a class of bureaucrats who believe that they know better than the elected officials. And that is the argument here, right? I mean, the Republican -- it's sort of an extension of what we saw earlier with the Environmental Protection Agency, and scientists, or with the FBI, and law enforcement officials that there is this -- there is this permanent, you know, deep state that is out to get me and you, my supporters. And that is the argument that they will make, and there is an audience for that argument.

But again, there is -- there are, you know, everybody hears it, everybody in the country hears it, and you can see what this is doing the Republican support in kind of white collar communities.

VAUSE: The conspiracy theory just doesn't actually add up. We're out of time, but you know, the fact that they were conspiring before the election in case he won so they could then do this three months -- three years ago. You know, it's bizarre. Ron, as always, thanks so much for being with us.

BROWNSTEIN: John, thank you.

VAUSE: I appreciate it. We have heard time and time again from President Trump about that perfect phone call he had with the Ukrainian president. But it seems Volodymyr Zelensky actually does not want to talk about that perfect phone call, at least not anymore. You know, this exchange is on Tuesday with CNN's Fred Pleitgen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRED PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: President Zelensky, is it true that you're ready to publicly announce the investigation into Burisma after your phone call with President Trump?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, there, yes, absolutely.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: I think -- I think everybody in Ukraine is so tired about Burisma. We have our country, we have our independence, we have our problems and question. That's it.

PLEITGEN: Well, that doesn't mean we don't want to talk about them anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: And for those who play along at home, Burisma is the energy company where the former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter sat on the board. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden in the Ukraine, although many of the President's allies actually seem to suggest otherwise without any proof or evidence.

A short break, when we come back, trading blows over Brexit and the National Health Service, but did Boris Johnson on Jerry Corbyn land a knockout blow, ahead on the first U.K. election debate also. And surrounded by police, Hong Kong protesters looking for another way out of the university campus. We'll tell you how they do that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:15:00]

(WEATHER WATCH)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: The Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz has less than a day to form a coalition government, and if he cannot, then Israelis could be heading back to the polls for their third election in less than a year. Gantz reportedly met late Tuesday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but there are no signs the two men were able to make a deal. This week's announcements by the U.S. to revise the legal status of West Bank settlements has been a plus for the Prime Minister and his right-wing allies. And once again, just like last time, the former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman is looking to be the Kingmaker. His party could help Gantz's former minority government, but it may need the backing of Arab parties and that could be the rub. In the past, Lieberman has called Arab Israeli lawmakers, a fifth column.

Well, in Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chief rival the Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn are both claiming victory after the first televised debate for the election campaign. We saw both men focused on Brexit in their opening remarks, but the spark started to really fly when they were asked about the National Health System. Dominic Thomas is CNN's European Affairs Commentator. He joins us now live from Los Angeles.

So, Dom, let's get straight to it. Here is that moment when the debate content heated. It began with an allegation from Corbyn that the conservatives want to open up the government-run health care system to American-run private health insurance companies. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER, BRITISH LABOUR PARTY: Full market access for U.S. products to our national health service. You're going to sell our national health service out to United States and big pharma.

BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN: This is -- this is an absolute -- this is an absolute invention. It is completely untrue. There are no circumstances whatever, in which this government or any Conservative government will put the NHS on the table in any trade negotiation. Our NHS will never be for sale.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: OK. So, this isn't directly related to Brexit, but it's not unrelated because the future of the NHS have been brought up because it could be part of a future trade deal with United States. And the only reason why they need a trade deal with the U.S. is because of Brexit. So, where does it stand, is the NHS up for sale?

[01:20:12]

DOMINIC THOMAS, CNN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, John, this has been an issue, really, to be honest with Brexit all the way along. Remember the red bus with the false claims about the money that would be saved from the European Union, and it would go back into the NHS. When President Donald Trump was on his state visit to the U.K., this question came up. But I think that the bigger issue here is that when Jeremy Corbyn can hold Boris Johnson accountable for the nine-year record of Conservative Party leadership, and attack him on domestic issues, while staying away from Brexit, he does much better.

And Boris Johnson's position, in the same way as he was when he was running for Conservative Party leader and now in the general election, has a lead. He's trying to manage that lead and he's trying to stay away from these very complicated questions. And there's a tremendous amount of suspicion around the future trade deal and around the way in which the U.S. would be involved in this.

VAUSE: Yes, that position you staked out about the strengths and weaknesses of both these men, it was really played out. And in the opening statements from both the labor and the conservative leaders. First of all, listen to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It's all about Brexit. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: Dither and delay, deadlock and division under a Corbyn sturgeon coalition with two referendums, another one on the E.U. and then another one on Scotland. Or, we can end this national misery, break the deadlock, get Brexit done.

(END VIDEO CLIP) VAUSE: Well, for the Labour leader, Corbyn, focusing on these bigger

issues. And as for Brexit, we'll leave that for another day. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORBYN: The Conservative government is failing. It's failed on the economy, on the climate crisis, the National Health Service, and on Brexit. We will get Brexit sorted by giving you, the people, a final say and implement whatever you decide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: So, with less than a month to go before, you know, voters head to the polls, which message is sort of resonating more?

THOMAS: Well, in this case, I think that the very format of this particular debate that just simply put Corbyn up against Boris Johnson, I think ultimately helped Boris Johnson. Certainly, Jeremy Corbyn was lucky to not have the Lib Dems on stage, offering an alternative vision of Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn, in many ways, has been part of the problem here, not the solution to this Brexit issues. And in the same way, as we talked about the NHS and domestic issues, when Boris Johnson talks about Brexit, he unambiguously hands down wins against Jeremy Corbyn. His position remains unclear and delayed over time.

And the fact is that the British public and those looking towards some kind of solution with Brexit, it's clear that Boris Johnson is able to offer that solution there. And he wins out on that in one and every single occasion. This is a single-issue election, and so the person who leads on that is going to dominate.

VAUSE: Very quickly, we're almost out of time. Both leaders were asked about Prince Andrew and this ongoing controversy over his friendship with the child molester, Jeffrey Epstein. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORBYN: Before we discuss Prince Andrew, I think we should discuss the victims that are there because of what Epstein is doing.

And I think there are very, very serious questions that must be answered and nobody should be above the law.

JOHNSON: All our sympathies would -- should be obviously with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and the law must certainly take its course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: You know, you could safely say neither Corbyn or Johnson emerged as a clear winner, but it seems the clear loser was Prince Andrew.

THOMAS: Yes, the Prince Andrew. And the fact is that, you know, in the context of Great U.K. today, all the newspapers have been covering the Prince Andrew story. It's such a big story that it was impossible for them to ignore it in what was the first televised general election debate. Yes, there are a party line issues here. Those that support the monarchy are more likely to support, you know, Boris Johnson and Brexit, and so on. But in this particular case, the other issue is it points to incredible abuse, privilege entitlement, and these are the sorts of issues that are also shaping and the discussion around Brexit and the -- and the general election here. And it was therefore very hard for them to ignore these particular issues and the impact that they're having on the climate in the U.K. today.

VAUSE: Dom, we're out of time, but we appreciate that. Thank you for being with us. It's getting close. Not long now --

THOMAS: Yes.

VAUSE: -- to the election. Cheers.

THOMAS: Thank you.

VAUSE: OK. Well, still to come, the U.S. Senate taking a stand on human rights abuse in Hong Kong, and getting a sharp warning in reply from Beijing. Also ahead, the rate of deforestation in the Amazon has hit its highest level in more than a decade. What may have caused that spike? Which President perhaps who's recently taken power would be responsible? We'll tell you in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:25:00]

VAUSE: China has warned very bluntly of retaliation if the U.S. President signs into law a bill on human rights abuse in Hong Kong. There was unanimous support amongst senators for the sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for abuses during the ongoing pro-democracy protests. It also requires the State Department to review Hong Kong's autonomous status every year. Republican Senator Marco Rubio led the effort.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): When the United Kingdom handed China -- handed Hong Kong over to China, they signed an agreement that's known as the Joint Declaration. And basically, it guaranteed a high degree of autonomy and freedom to the people of Hong Kong. As a result of that agreement, the United States has treated commerce and trade with Hong Kong differently than it has commercial and trade activity with the mainland of China. But what's happened over the last few years is the steady effort on the part of Chinese authorities to erode that autonomy and those freedoms. If Hong Kong is no longer autonomous, and that's the rationale for different treatment, then they should no longer receive that treatment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Beijing says the measure neglects facts and truth and the law blatantly interferes in Hong Kong's affairs and China's other internal affairs. Meantime, a group of protesters remain in a standoff with police at Hong Kong's Polytechnic University. Some have tried to escape through the sewer system, through manholes (INAUDIBLE) and fire crews searched for protesters, but they warned it's a dangerous route to take. Joining us from Sydney is Ben Bland Research Fellow and director of the Southeast Asia project at the Lowy Institute. So, Ben, thanks for being with us. You know, the language which we heard from Beijing in the past couple hours, it seems -- it seems pretty tough language. So, specifically, what do you imagine that retaliation would look like?

BEN BLAND, DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTHEAST ASIA PROJECT, LOWY INSTITUTE: We'll have to see. I mean, to some extent, it's what we would expect the Chinese government to say. They don't have these lines of resisting what they call foreign intervention in their domestic affairs, even though Hong Kong's special status is something that's given to it by outside powers based on its autonomy so there is a direct interest there.

[01:29:54]

But they've long given up this line about rejecting all intervention. We'll have to see what they do in terms of retaliation. I mean you have got had other cases like Huawei, they've obviously detained two Canadians for almost a year now in a seeming retaliation for Canada's moves to detain a Huawei executive at U.S. request.

But the interesting thing is they've always been more reluctant to pursue that sort of action against the U.S. given that it is the only other superpower apart from China itself.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: You know, the bill which passed through the Senate was cosponsored by the Republican Marco Rubio. We heard from him just before. He later though tweeted out this pretty slick looking campaign style video. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I hope the people of Hong Kong know that they have served as an inspiration to the world. We want you to know that your cause will continue to be our cause. We will continue to speak out. We will not allow the world to ignore or forget what you are doing and what it is that you are working on behalf of.

I want to thank you for all you've done to inspire us. Please know we're with you every step of the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: The only thing missing was a call for money. You know, but this Senate bill which threatens Beijing with removing Hong Kong's special status with the U.S. which, you know, exempted Hong Kong, you know, from the tariffs that Trump had used in the trade war with China.

If that status is, you know, taken away won't the pain be gotten (ph) mostly by the people of Hong Kong? BLAND: I think like all sanctions, it's a bit of a nuclear option.

So there's a really strong deterrent power there. The problem is, once you've actually used it there's not really any going back.

But it's important to understand here that people across the "Democracy Movement" in Hong Kong from those on the street to people (INAUDIBLE) in Hong Kong's student council have been lobbying at the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress for several years to push this kind of measure through.

But people in the Democracy Movement say it's something they want but they need Beijing to know that there is potential counter action it can face and central damage but yes, erase the ask it will face if it continues to erode Hong Kong's autonomy and freedom.

So yes, there is a risk in the end if they pull the trigger on this, it's going to impact the whole economy and that won't just be the establishment. But I guess the hope for the democracy movement is deterrent and it's never actually used.

I guess the other point is that it simply recognizes the facts, as Senator Rubio points it out. Hong Kong's autonomy is really under threat. And I think if that's the basis on which Hong Kong gets preferential economic and trade treatment, and the facts have changed, then it's only natural that at some point the U.S. and other governments around the world are going to have to reassess whether or not they continue to treat Hong Kong differently.

VAUSE: Very quickly, Ben -- we're almost out of time. But we heard from the chief executive Carrie Lam sort of hinting that local elections may be delayed this weekend because of the unrest. Earlier this week, Beijing challenged the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary over a ruling in the constitutional court, which affected, you know the basic law of Hong Kong.

You know, that seems like an odd thing to do right now, both those moves as well as, you know, putting the PLA out on the streets to clean up when you have thousands of people on the streets protesting about their loss of democratic rights and an independent judiciary and all that kind of industry and the encroachment on those rights by Beijing.

It just seems like a weird move at this point.

BLAND: Yes, it does seem that -- especially after her meeting with Xi Jinping earlier this month, I mean the Hong Kong government Carrie Lam and Beijing are basically doubling down on their strategy to continue cracking down.

They view this as a law and order problem, (INAUDIBLE) they can arrest people, (INAUDIBLE) thousands of people, they'll get rid of them, the troublemakers and everything will be ok when in fact the opposite has been happening.

The more they've been squeezing Hong Kong, the stronger the protest movement has been, the more you're not (INAUDIBLE). So it seems to be contributing to this (INAUDIBLE) escalation which I think most outside observers and people inside Hong Kong, having independent views, expect that to continue unless Beijing and the Hong Kong government decide to take a different more conciliatory approach.

VAUSE: Ben -- we're out of time but good to see you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

BLAND: Thanks -- John.

VAUSE: Next up on CNN NEWSROOM, with historic wildfires ravaging parts of Australia, one woman risked her life to save one injured koala. More on that in a moment.

[01:34:22]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: It wasn't long after being elected president of Brazil in October last year, the ultraconservative Jair Bolsonaro began to weaken environmental measures designed to reduce the deforestation of the Amazon. For most of the decade, those regulations were part of a successful strategy which significantly slows the rate of destruction of the world's biggest rainforest.

But now funding for a key government agency has been cut. Efforts to fight illegal logging, mining and ranching scaled back. Bolsonaro has long argued those policies were holding back economic growth.

And here is the thing, when all of those measures to reduce deforestation are rolled back then deforestation actually increases -- a simple cause and effect.

And now that effect can be quantified. The National Institute for Space Research which monitors the forest reports almost 10,000 square kilometers of rainforest were lost from August last year two July this year, the highest rate of lost in a decade.

The Climate Observatory, a Brazilian network of environmental groups, says this severe rate of deforestation is a direct result of the strategy implemented by Bolsonaro to dismantle the ministry of environment. Jess Phoenix is a geologist and cofounder of Blueprint Earth and she is with us this hour how from Los Angeles. So Jess -- thanks for coming in. Good to see you.

JESS PHOENIX, FO-FOUNDER BLUE PRINT EARTH: Good to see you too -- John.

VAUSE: Ok. We should note, the Amazon is still burning. We just haven't reported on it. Almost 20,000 outbreaks in September, most of those fires have been deliberately lit as a way of clearing land for farmers near old ranches. And this is happening with a whole lot more than just a wink and a nod from the president.

PHOENIX: Exactly. I mean his policies are completely designed to allow for slash and burn clearing of irreplaceable rainforest. And it's not just the environmental, or basically eco side, there is also genocide occurring because you have indigenous people being pushed off of their historic land so that agribusiness can come in and make a profit.

VAUSE: So, the U.S. government arguing back, you know, from Brazil that, you know, the rate of deforestation was actually starting to accelerate for a while for the last couple of years, long before Bolsonaro took power.

That is true, but it's not the whole truth?

PHOENIX: Exactly, I mean we are still at lower levels of deforestation, compared to what we saw in the 90s when they had very, very high levels. But Bolsonaro has just -- I mean a 30 percent increase in one year's time -- that is beyond statistically significant, that is an outrage.

So this is a direct result of Bolsonaro's policies, which are completely anti environment.

VAUSE: Yes, he had this argument that, you know, these tough environmental regulations had been hurting business. Well, I guess, those regulations being weakened or rolled back might end up hurting Brazil's business anyway.

We have elected officials in the two biggest cities in the United States -- New York and Los Angeles, proposing measures which would require city departments to cut ties with businesses linked to the wildfires still burning in the Amazon. You know, for example the cattle industry, you know, the beef exports. You know, often what happens in these big cities when they pick up and, you know, replicate across -- not just the United States but around the world.

[01:40:01]

VAUSE: So you know, are these boycotts, are they effective in bringing about change?

PHOENIX: Yes, consumers actually are an extremely powerful force in our very market-driven economic systems around the world. So, if you have countries and cities with very large populations agreeing that they don't want to endorse the methods employed by Bolsonaro, then that is going to send a very clear statement of the corporations involved, and that can actually lead to behavior change in corporations.

So you and I, we actually do have a lot of power here.

VAUSE: Yes, you just have to be very conscious of what you are buying and where it's coming from. Take a little bit of more work.

I want to finish up, though, with this situation in Australia -- scorching temperatures.

Here are some headlines from recent days, across the country records for the hottest November day have been tumbling everywhere from Perth across the south of Australia to near the southern states as well, Melbourne as well as New South Wales.

All of this is making a fire emergency even worse; catastrophic fire conditions for south Australia. And we also have the web site nature reporting Australian reporting Australia now becomes the second advanced economy after the United States to drop emissions reduction policies which they agreed to in the 2015 Paris Climate Conference.

Ok. So with the United States withdrawing, Australia out effectively, and then you have, you know, Brazil's Bolsonaro rejecting, you know, what is essentially a climate crisis. Is there like a contagion effect here? Does this make it easier for other governments that may have wanted follow their lead? And give some cover?

PHOENIX: Well, you think about it this way, corporations and governments, they don't have a conscience on their own, right. that is where we depend on the people who elect those in power to give them a conscience and to hold them accountable when they take actions that you and I wouldn't agree with.

So it is up to voters in those countries to put the brakes on this kind of behavior. and you have to hope that there are enough leaders in countries that do understand the science, and that do want to make evidence based policy about the environment and how we interact with it that we can hold back this flood of bad news, because climate change isn't going to go away and we have to act, otherwise we're going to see more and more tragic wildfires because the soil is drying out, the air is relatively less humid, and anything that happens in terms of climate change and related disasters is going to be intensified and more frequent.

So we either need to prepare for that or prevent it.

VAUSE: And the damage and everything from it will be incredibly costly. I mean we've seen these billions of dollars near wildfire damage and floods and hurricanes every year. The cost just continues to mount.

As always Jess -- appreciation you being us. Thank you.

PHOENIX: Yes. Thanks, -- John.

VAUSE: Before we go the costs of these bush fires can and should be measured by more than just the loss of human life and property. More than 300 koalas are believed to have died in these most recent outbreaks but a few have been rescued.

In this case by one very brave woman. We only know her name is Connie (ph). She ran towards the fire to save an injured koala wrapping him in her shirt and then pouring water on his burns to try and ease the pain.

He was taken to a nearby koala hospital, has been named Lewis and here's an update from one local reporter posted on Twitter. "Lewis is around 14 years old. He is well enough to have a munch on some eucalyptus leaves this morning. He's still suffering some serious burns but he is alive and hopefully will recover. Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I am John Vause.

Please stay with us. "WORLD SPORT is next.

[01:43:32]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END