Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Suspect Killed After Terror Attack Near London Bridge; Deadline Looms For White House To Commit To Critical Impeachment Hearing; Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) Interviewed On Her Insights On Impeachment Hearing. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 29, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

RYAN NOBLES, CNN HOST: Several people were injured when a man wearing a hoax explosive device strapped into his body and went on a stabbing rampage near London Bridge in packed Central London.

And we do want to warn you the images you're about to see our graphic.

The suspect is now dead, shot by police, clad in riot gear after members of the public tackled him to the ground.

The incident caught on video by eyewitnesses and again, we do want to warn you that what you're about to see is disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[INCOMPREHENSIBLE SHOUTING]

[Gunshots]

NEIL BASU, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, METROPOLITAN POLICE: A male suspect was shot by Specialist Armed Officers from the City of London Police and I can confirm that this suspect died at the scene.

A number of other people received injuries during this incident. As soon as we can provide further updates on their condition, we will.

Due to the nature of the incident, we responded as though this was terrorist related. I'm now in a position to confirm that it has been declared a terrorist incident.

I can confirm at this time, we believe a device that was strapped to the body of the suspect is a hoax explosive device. Officers continue to carry out meticulous searches in the area to ensure there is no outstanding threat to the public.

Those extensive cordons will remain in place for a considerable time, and I would ask the public, please continue to avoid the area.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: All right, let's go live now to London for the very latest. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh joins us there. Nick, give us the latest? NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: At this

point, there are questions really to be answered still as London tries to get back to normal on this, a very busy part of a Friday night in a very busy part of the city.

Behind me, you can see a deserted street. There was a flurry of police activity a matter of hours ago. As you heard just then, this cordon that is in place with substantial numbers of blocks around the key monument of London Bridge beginning to ease slightly to itself is still in place here as police make absolutely sure there is no residual threat in the area around here.

Now Boris Johnson, the U.K. Prime Minister giving a somber speech, the first time he has had to address a terror attack since he became Prime Minister says that as far as they are aware, they believe this incident is over.

Now, the incident itself started sometime before two o'clock local time this afternoon, where police will call to quote at "premises" somewhere near London Bridge. We don't know exactly where that was. But that instant then unfolded and two members of the public trying to restrain this one attacker.

Police, often here in an armed presence around the City of London because of the frequency, sadly, of terror attacks that have afflicted London in the past years, police arrived very fast on the scene and as you see in that video, members of the public taking away a long blade from the area.

Another member of the public pulled off it seemed that assailant by police, who then we can only imagine must have seen the suspicious hoax device on the assailant and then felt there was no choice but to open fire, killing the suspect, who eventually died of his wounds at the scene there.

Then the lockdown came into place here around this part of London. Gunshots never heard frankly, in this central financial district.

Two o'clock would have been a time people will be finishing lunch, perhaps thinking about going early home on a Friday, startling that people are having to deal with a sort of incident.

We don't know how many people in fact in total were stabbed or injured. Some we hear from London's Mayor were seriously injured. He has also referred to how those who intervened, risking themselves to take this assailant down with the very best of humanity and praised echo, too by the U.K. Prime Minister of the police forces who rushed in fast at that particular scene. As I say, sadly practiced in dealing with assailants like this.

The key questions to be answered still, who was this one lone man? Was he indeed acting by himself? That appears to be as much as we know the case at this point. What was his motivation? Terror is said to be the suggested motive behind this particular attack here, but we don't know what ideology fueled this one particular individual. And of course, too, as we often hear from British security services

and their colleagues around the world, often mental health comes into play here.

Jihadist groups like ISIS often degraded where they have had bases in the past, but still the ideology can prey upon minds that are in otherwise need of some assistance because of their own personal illnesses, but still London very much shaken by this here.

Although you can see behind me, Central London trying to go about its daily routine as best as it can. Back to you, Ryan.

NOBLES: All right, Nick Paton Walsh on the ground there in London with the latest on the terror attack there. Nick, thank you very much.

[14:05:10]

NOBLES: Let's get more perspective on this now and bring in Nic Robertson, who is our international diplomatic editor. Of course, London, not seeing anything like this in a while. Two years have passed since the last terror incident on London Bridge, that's where eight people were killed.

So Nic, explain this to us. I mean, how big is there of a security concern for that bridge in particular? I mean, this is a tourist attraction, an iconic spot in London and there's always a lot of people in that area.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: And there's an even bigger sort of security presence in the City of London financial district just across the river. That's traditionally been a place where the IRA back in the battle days of the fighting in Northern Ireland that they would attack, additional security precautions are there. So you have additional armed police in that district because it's often been a target in the past.

The police obviously on a much sort of more ready footing for several reasons. Number one, ISIS does continue to make threats against capitals in Europe, even though it hasn't been able to carry them out.

It is coming into the Christmas season and that is a well-known time when ISIS and their ilk would want to target, say that they want to target Christmas shoppers, that sort of thing.

So for that reason, the police, I think, have been on a much more sort of forward footing than you would have seen them before.

But again, what strikes me about this is, is the readiness of the public. Numbers of the public to jump in here. Now, had the attacker been armed with a gun, it might have been different.

One attacker, a number of people have got involved to sort of wrestle him to the ground, get the knife away. And I think that shows you the mood in the city.

People -- it's not utterly unsurprising that there will be an attack, but they're not going to let people get away with it.

NOBLES: Right. There is more people running to than necessarily running away. It's interesting, you talk about the footing of the police there that they do appear to be on guard, but we do know that London recently actually lowered its threat level. What was the motivation behind that? And do you think something like this would force them to rethink that decision?

ROBERTSON: Their answer would be, we're going to look at everything in the context of this individual. And that will inform us about the decision for whether or not we should change the threat level and bring it back up.

Remember in that horrible bombing in Manchester where more than 20 people were killed just over two years ago. That's when the threat level went to its maximum level, meaning that a threat was imminent. And then it had been downgraded to -- downgraded a level and it had been downgraded again a few weeks ago.

So this isn't taken -- a decision taken by the government, but by the Intelligence Services on sort of the threat patterns that they see, the Intelligence on specific individuals. It's a big picture, decision that's taken.

So we're in the period of an election. We're just a few weeks away from an election, so things can get political quickly, will the Prime Minister be called out over this? I think that depends on what the Intelligence Services and what the police discover.

Remember that last attack on London Bridge., three attackers and one of them had been known to the Intelligence Services previously. Has this guy come out of the blue so to speak? Or had he been under surveillance earlier? Skipped surveillance? We don't know that. That can feed the political narrative.

So I think at the moment, you're going to find the authorities are going to stick by the fact that by and large and broadly across Europe, the threat has been seen as coming down and it was at the right level that this moment, but they will obviously evaluate, as they would say.

NOBLES: All right, still a lot we need to learn about the situation.

ROBERTSON: Absolutely.

NOBLES: All right. Nic Robertson, thanks so much for being here. We appreciate it.

And still to come. Waiting for the White House. The Trump team has until the end of the weekend to announce an important decision. Will they show up for the next impeachment hearing?

Plus, will any allegations from the Russia investigation show up in the Articles of Impeachment? We will ask Congresswoman Debbie Dingell.

And a top aide for Kamala Harris resigns with a scathing letter revealing details about a collapsing campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:13:55]

NOBLES: The President is back at his Florida estate after spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Afghanistan.

But in just two days, the President will be forced to go from his holiday celebration back to the impeachment investigation as he faces a consequential week. He will have to decide by Sunday evening if the White House will take part in the first impeachment hearing under the House Judiciary Committee.

It will be his first chance to participate in the impeachment process. But will the administration be a no show? In Monday or Tuesday, it is expected the House Intelligence Committee will release its report on what's been learned so far in the inquiry.

And of course, this is all moving toward Christmas Day, which is the deadline that House Democrats have set to vote on whether or not the President will be impeached.

A yes will trigger a trial in the Senate. That's only been done twice before in the 243 years of this nation.

CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins near the President's Florida resort. Kaitlan, any word yet if anybody from the White House is going to be there Wednesday for the Judiciary Committee hearing?

Now, you've been reporting the administration has been leaning toward a no.

[14:15:06]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they had been leaning toward no when we checked in with them this week, but something that they're still cautioning, Ryan, is that they haven't made a final decision on all of this.

This is something they were still going through the motions, deciding not only whether or not they're going to send a White House attorney now that they've been invited to do, something they were not allowed to do during the last rounds of those impeachment hearings, which is something you are the White House and the President's Republican allies being highly critical of Democrats for not allowing an attorney in the room.

Now, the latest thinking inside the White House is they were likely not going to send an attorney. They didn't think it was going to be in their favor if they did because of course, sending a White House counsel would also come with stipulations about whether or not they send those other witnesses that so far have not gone forward.

People like the Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney; the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo; Energy Secretary, Rick Perry; several of these officials who so far have refused to testify.

And of course, Democrats had that stipulation that the White House is going to continue to block those witnesses, then they would be able to change the rules up.

Now the thinking of the White House was no on the attorney, whether or not that changes with anything that the Chairman, Jerry Nadler says over the next few days is still up for discussion inside the White House.

But we should also note one other thing that they were considering doing is potentially, if they didn't send an attorney, they were still considering suggesting witnesses for them to have in this impeachment hearing.

Now, who they would have on Wednesday, when the constitutional scholars are going to be present is not really something the White House has been able to figure out either.

But Ryan, essentially what it is, a lot of behind the scenes, they're still trying to map out what their steps are going to be as the Democrats are moving into this next phase.

NOBLES: All right, so still a lot we have to learn in this upcoming week. Kaitlan Collins live from West Palm Beach, Florida. Kaitlan, thank you for that report.

All right, let's now turn to Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan. She's a senior whip and the co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

So first Congresswoman, I'm going to have to ask you, I mean, you might have some insight into this that the rest of us don't. Any idea when we should expect this House Intelligence report?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): I know that the staff is working on it. They're making sure that it is thorough and accurate. I myself, am waiting like the American people to read it. I'm not on those committees. I have no inside intelligence, but I think they are trying to target it for next week.

NOBLES: You expect that you'll learn anything new that we haven't already learned from these hearings in that report?

DINGELL: Well, I do believe that there may -- we've got to always protect our national security. There was testimony in classified settings, but I think they will summarize it in a way that not only I, my colleagues in both parties, but the American people can understand and what they recommend to the Judiciary Committee.

I think it's very important that we have a very -- this is really a very serious time.

NOBLES: Right.

DINGELL: I think it's one -- I never thought I'd have to vote on something like this. I mean, I take it very seriously. We're in a process. We're trying to make sure it's a fair and transparent process. And it's part of the process.

NOBLES: So to that end, do you believe that anything involving the Russia investigation and those allegations should be included in the Articles of Impeachment, or should it only be focused on the situation with Ukraine?

DINGELL: Well, my understanding, first of all, I don't -- I do know, because I read the Mueller report, and I've talked to a lot of people. I have been hacked myself. I've talked to Intelligence Agencies from other countries.

Russia is trying to divide us as a country. It is trying to destabilize democracies around the country. But that really has -- I don't know what information the Intelligence Committee has or what those issues are, and I don't know what they're going to include.

I am someone who thinks we have to be transparent. The American people have to understand. What the Wednesday hearing will do is try to define, what is an impeachable offense? What is a high crime or misdemeanor? We need to understand that.

And I think that's what the judiciary is going to try to define so that all of us, including me as a member of Congress, understand, and we go from there.

So what does the Intelligence Committee include in their report will matter.

NOBLES: Right. And so then I also want to ask you your thoughts about the step past impeachment. You know, how does the Senate handle this? How -- what would you recommend as House members and specifically, I want to ask you about the possibility of just censure as opposed to being removed from office?

And your colleague, Representative Brenda Lawrence, she is one that prefers that over impeachment. She thinks that that's probably a better idea.

And I want to read to you from a CNN opinion writer, who says that censure actually could be like a holding pattern for you that would, you know, prevent you from having to move too fast too quickly, and he wrote, "A censure would issue a formal warning: This is unacceptable behavior from a President, but we will not remove you from office at this time. However, pending further testimony, or should there be any instance of further wrongdoing, the appropriate remedy is removal from office."

And this is the big point that Charles Firestone makes, should the Senate ultimately acquit, which is a possibility given that Republicans control the Senate. Is there the possibility that this would prevent you from moving forward with another impeachable offense if that were to be discovered?

Are you concerned that this could create a finality to this investigation that would kind of box you in?

[14:20:13]

DINGELL: So first of all, I haven't made any decision about what we should do because I'm waiting for both the Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee to make a recommendation.

My colleague, Brenda Lawrence came out for impeachment long before I did. I, last summer under enormous pressure, Tom Steyer, buying ads against me on moveon.org.

NOBLES: Right.

DINGELL: I didn't come out for it because I was very worried about Russia dividing us as a country. But once a Trump Inspector General said, it's real, it's credible. It's serious, it's urgent and a danger to our national security. I've said we needed to investigate. No one is above the rule of the law.

So my colleague Brenda Lawrence, who came out long before I did, clarified her statement or then said she still believes that he should be impeached up. I have been very methodical.

I think every one of us, Republican or Democrat needs to be methodical. We need to understand what those issues are and the Senate must do the same thing.

I don't like the partisan or the fact that Republicans have been -- I mean, quite frankly, I've talked to them off record. Some of them are just very afraid to come out. Our job -- my job is to protect the Constitution and that's -- when we take that Oath of Office, every member has that same obligation.

NOBLES: It's interesting that you make that point about Russia dividing us and perhaps using impeachment as a way to do that.

You know, the Bloomberg campaign in specific has said that impeachment could actually embolden the Trump campaign, fire up his supporters. Are you concerned at all about that? Especially if you have someone like a bad actor like Russia, being involved in it and fanning those flames?

DINGELL: So you know, look, I was one of the people that told everybody Donald Trump can win and everybody thought I was crazy three years ago.

I have said right now that I've got people in my district that are strongly supporting him. I walked the GM picket line every weekend with people that were still voting for him.

I think all of us need to focus about how divided we are. But we also need to protect our country. And we also need to -- what is a -- what is wrong? Everybody -- nobody is above the rule of the law. So we have that moral responsibility, too.

And we have that responsibility to protect our democracy. And I take that as the most serious responsibility I have.

NOBLES: And so I want to get your thoughts on Rudy Giuliani's role in all of this, obviously, there were a number of people that testified about his role being inappropriate. And it seemed to come back to him at almost every turn.

At some point, do you think Republicans will start to take the lead of the President? Maybe start to distance themselves from Rudy Giuliani?

DINGELL: I have talked to many Republicans who, quite frankly, more of them are more willing to talk about that publicly than they are the President.

I think -- look, I don't -- you've got a lot of Republicans that are publicly saying the behavior related to Ukraine was inappropriate. Is it impeachable? And that's why the Judiciary report, the hearings will be important.

But I have been stunned at some of Rudy Giuliani's behavior. And I just think it really has crossed a line. And you can probably see more people pile on there because it is so clear how inappropriate his behavior has been.

NOBLES: Well, Congresswoman, we appreciate you being here on a holiday week.

DINGELL: Thank you.

NOBLES: You obviously have a monumental job in front of you -- historic, in fact, over the next several weeks.

DINGELL: It is historic. And serious.

NOBLES: So we wish you the best of luck with that.

DINGELL: Thank you.

NOBLES: Appreciate you being here.

DINGELL: Thank you for having me.

NOBLES: All right. More turbulence in the Democratic race for President, an aide to Kamala Harris calls it quits and blasts her team in a scathing letter. We will talk about what's behind the collapse of a once promising campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:28:26]

NOBLES: In the race for 2020, Kamala Harris is facing reports of turmoil within her campaign. After weeks of losing ground in national polling and widespread state layoffs, "The New York Times" obtained a scathing resignation letter from one of her state operations directors. In it, Kelly Mehlenbacher writes quote, "This is my third presidential

campaign and I've never seen an organization treated staff so poorly with less than 90 days until Iowa. We still do not have a real plan to win."

"Our campaign for the people is made up of diverse talent which is being squandered by indecision and a lack of leaders who will lead. This is unacceptable."

And joining me now to discuss this, CNN political reporter, Rebecca Buck. And Rebecca, this campaign staffer, we should make the point of has now gone to work for Mike Bloomberg's campaign, so she does still have kind of a horse in this race and we should definitely make that clear.

But she makes a lot of accusations about what's going on inside the Harris campaign. What do you make of this?

REBECCA BUCK, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, this letter and this particular staffer's account is really just the beginning, Ryan.

"The New York Times" in this report spoke with 50 staffers, former and current and also allies of the campaign to get this very detailed picture of some of the problems -- deep problems -- within the Kamala Harris campaign, and many of the staffers point to the candidate herself as the source of these problems, the source of mismanagement of the campaign and also a lack of a clear direction when it comes to messaging, when it comes to strategy.