Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Faces Two Big Deadlines For Impeachment Proceedings; Bystanders Confront Attacker With Narwhal Tusk And Fire Extinguisher; Biden To Blitz Iowa On No Malarkey Bus Tour. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired November 30, 2019 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN NEWSROOM: You are in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Alex Marquardt in for Ana Cabrera this evening.

The president has openly complained the House impeachment hearings have so far been unfair to him and that he hasn't been allowed to participate. But now, Democrats are offering him a chance to call his own witnesses or present his own evidence. So will he? House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is giving the White House until Friday at 5:00 P.M. to make their decision.

But there is a second more pressing deadline. That's tomorrow evening at 6:00 P.M. That's when the president has to decide whether he'll send White House lawyers to the Judiciary Committee's first impeachment session, which will take place on Wednesday.

CNN White House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond joins me from where the president is spending his Thanksgiving holiday weekend in West Palm Beach.

Jeremy, the White House has said that they are reviewing the invitation letters from Jerry Nadler -- all right, well, we just lost the connection there with Jeremy, so we will try to get that back up. I want to see if we have our legal team that has been standing by -- all right. Well, we'll get back to them.

So while the Judiciary Committee takes the lead on impeachment this coming week, the House Intelligence Committee is finishing a report that will detail the allegations that could become the basis for articles of impeachment. CNN's Tom Foreman shows us some of the evidence that they have to work with.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Spring 2019, as Volodymyr Zelensky is winning the presidency of Ukraine, a widely respected U.S. ambassador to that country is losing her job. Marie Yovanovitch, according to testimony, was called home following a months' long smear campaign suggesting she was disloyal to President Trump. Behind it, Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: I do not understand Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me.

FOREMAN: But now, testimony tells us Yovanovitch was simply in the way because she wouldn't buy into a disproven conspiracy theory Giuliani was pushing.

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY: The facts are stubborn. And, eventually, this is going to have to be investigated.

FOREMAN: Giuliani wanted the Ukrainians to investigate debunked allegations of corruption in Ukraine tied to the U.S. Democratic Party in the 2016 U.S. election, Joe Biden, a potential rival to Trump for the presidency, and Biden's son.

Giuliani insisted it had nothing to do with Trump's re-election plans and there is nothing illegal about it. But soon, Trump was saying if a foreign country offered dirt on a political foe --

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think I'd want to hear it.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: You want that kind of interference in our elections.

TRUMP: It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI.

FOREMAN: Summer, Team Trump keeps pushing for an investigation, a murky unofficial channel appears to be opening between the White House and Ukraine. And as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, becomes more involved in it, those on the official side grow alarmed, including Trump's then National Security Council Director for Europe and Russia, Fiona Hill.

FIONA HILL, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER TOP RUSSIA ADVISER: Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy and those two things have just diverged.

FOREMAN: Ukraine has previously concluded there is nothing to the allegations of meddling in the U.S. election and the claims against Biden. They initially appear reluctant to dive into American politics.

Then the White House unexpectedly suspends nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. A visit to the White House, which the new president wants, is on hold too. Trump gets on the phone with Zelensky and drives the message home.

I would like you to do us a favor. He personally asked for an investigation. He mentions Biden by name. The next day, the Ukrainians commit. Sondland calls Trump with a message.

DANIEL GOLDMAN, MAJORITY DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: President Zelensky, quote, loves your ass, unquote. Do you recall saying that?

GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: Yes, that sounds like something I would say.

FOREMAN: Trump defenders say this was all about fighting corruption in Ukraine, but Sondland now says everyone knew what was really about pushing for a public announcement that Biden was under suspicion.

REP. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (D-NY): Who would benefit from an investigation into the Bidens?

SONDLAND: I assume President Trump would benefit from it.

MALONEY: There we have it. See?

FOREMAN: Then everything blows up.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: We now know the whistleblower --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The whistleblower complaint --

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: The whistleblower scandal --

FOREMAN: And anonymous whistleblower files a report reflecting widening concerns about the call, from a decorated military officer --

ALEXANDER VINDMAN, DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: It was improper for the president.

FOREMAN: -- from an aide to Vice President Pence --

JENNIFER WILLIAMS, SPECIAL ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: It involved discussion of what appeared to be a appeared to be a domestic political matter.

FOREMAN: News of the suspended military aid erupts, Congress starts buzzing.

[18:05:02]

Did Trump coerce a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

As the scandal boils up, Trump releases military aid, a rough transcript of the call and goes on defense.

TRUMP: If you take a look at that call, it was perfect.

FOREMAN: Even as his acting chief of staff seems to confirm pressure was applied to Ukraine.

MICK MULVANEY, WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF: We do that all the time with foreign policy. And I have news for everybody. Get over it.

FOREMAN: He walks it back.

Autumn, facing an impeachment inquiry, Trump orders officials to defy congressional subpoenas to explain what happened, and he insists there was never any kind of deal.

TRUMP: There was no quid pro quo.

There was no quid pro quo at all.

I want no quid pro quo.

FOREMAN: But his own ambassador, Sondland, under oath, says otherwise.

SONDLAND: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is, yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: The president and many Republicans have dismissed all of this as yet another conspiracy, an illicit effort to push him out of office after he was duly elected. But one after another, witnesses have said, no, there really was an improper deal to benefit Trump politically by using U.S. power abroad.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

MARQUARDT: All right, thanks to Tom Foreman.

So everything that Tom outlined there was what the Intelligence Committee had been looking at, what they were investigating over the past eight weeks. And they will soon send a report to the Judiciary Committee, which has been tasked with writing up the articles of impeachment.

So let's get the legal perspective on all this with two of our guests, Gene Rossi, he's a former federal prosecutor and a former assistant U.S. attorney, as well as Jennifer Rodgers, a CNN Legal Analyst, also a former federal prosecutor and a lecturer at Columbia Law University. Thank you both for joining me this evening.

Jennifer, I want to start with you. And the president and his legal team now have -- in the past, I should say, they have demanded access and better treatments. The president has called this an unfair process. Now, there are two invitations from Jerry Nadler on the Judiciary Committee to participate in the impeachment hearings going forward. Do you think that they should?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't know whether they should, but I think they will. I mean, one of the defenses that has been emerging throughout the House Intel process is kind of the throwing things at the wall to see if they'll stick, like throwing out other conspiracy theories, trying to confuse matters.

So even if all they're going to do is, again, toss out these conspiracy theories about Burisma and the Bidens and the server in the Ukraine, I think that they'll consider it worth their while to show up and do that. The question is, will we also see the emergence of a coherent defense strategy to the actual impeachment. That I'm not so sure about, because I just don't know what that coherent strategy would be.

MARQUARDT: And, Jennifer, let me stay with you for a second. What would actually change if the White House and their lawyers participated versus if they didn't if we'd step back a little bit and assume that these articles of impeachment will get voted that the impeachment will happen in the House?

RODGERS: Well, it's not entirely clear, because I don't think anything that they will do will stop the impeachment, will stop the voting for impeachment in the House. So the question is what will be the impact of the president's advisers coming in and trying to muddy the waters and confuse matters. Will that actually confuse some members of the public and make them think that maybe this is not a legitimate inquiry or will it actually backfire on them and the public will see that, in fact, all their doing is try to confuse things and not focusing on defending the actual questions.

So I think they're probably currently struggling with that question. What will the impact be of what they're going to try to do and I don't think we'll really know that until we see start to see some polling as the Senate trial gets under way.

MARQUARDT: Gene, can we talk a little bit about what we can expect to see in the Judiciary Committee hearing, at least the first one on Wednesday? We understand it will be a bit more nuts and bolts and we'll look at the legal aspects, the academic aspects, historic aspects of impeachment. Why would they do that rather than going straight to the evidence that is going to be given to them by the Intelligence Committee?

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it's a brilliant stroke, and here's why. This coming Wednesday, December 4th, the American people are going to be in a law school class. You know, what does the impeachment clause of the Constitution actually mean? Put aside the facts. Let's talk about the law of impeachment.

And for a nerd like me, I can't wait to get into the weeds on what did the framers think about when they put that clause in the constitution, because there was a fulsome debate in 1789 on putting that in, or when the Constitution was passed.

[18:10:09]

So it's going to be very somber on the part of the Democrats.

I will say this, and I want to supplement what Jennifer said, and I agree with her. This could end up being a food fight, either Wednesday or the following days. It could be like a scene out of Animal House in the cafeteria. Because on one side of the aisle, you're going to have Matt Gaetz, you're going to have Jim Jordan, who both are pitbulls. You're going to have Doug Collins of Georgia, ranking member, who's thinking about running for the Senate. So it is going to be political theater on steroids. And I have to say this, I respect jerry Nadler but he's not Adam Schiff. And if you look at the Corey Lewandowski hearing, Chairman Nadler kind of let that get out of hand and I hope it doesn't happen with the House Judiciary because that will only benefit President Trump.

MARQUARDT: Jennifer, if the White House legal team turns down these invitations, the Democrats will really have the ball more than they do so already. Why wouldn't the president at least send a lawyer to be there in that room?

RODGERS: Well, that's why I think that he will, because, you know, that gives them the opportunity to ask questions and, again, just kind of try to change the focus, muddy the waters. I don't think they will let the Democrats have what will be more smooth sailing towards an impeachment vote. I think they will try to muck it up a little bit at least.

And even though Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan, as Gene was saying, are going to do some of that heavy lifting for him, I still think he'll take the opportunity to send his lawyers and try to do some of that job too.

MARQUARDT: Well, hearing that the House could impeach the president by Christmas, which would then, of course, lead to a Senate trial in the New Year. And talk right now is that Republicans might give Democrats two weeks to make their case.

Gene, are Democrats better off putting their best case out there now in the Judiciary Committee or saving more for the Senate trial?

ROSSI: Oh, I think they should put on as much as they can before the House Judiciary Committee. Because, frankly, and I'm a little disappointed, I predict it's going to be an acquittal in the Senate. And with McConnell and Lindsey Graham, they could have a hearing that moves in a summary fashion so that it doesn't get the full air of the facts.

I think the Democrats and the House Judiciary should put on a fulsome presentation of not only the law, what the professors are going to talk about December 4th, but the facts that support the elements of the charges, and I predict about three or four articles.

And as Jennifer will tell you, when you're a prosecutor, you have the law that you know before the trial, and your goal during a trial is to satisfy the elements. And I think if the House Judiciary does that and then does it on the House floor, and then does it on the Senate floor, you're going to have three bites of the apple to show the American public that this is textbook, textbook bribery, and an abuse of power by the president of the United States.

MARQUARDT: As you both know, the case that Democrats have been making is that the president extorted and bribed the Ukrainians dangling military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for those investigations. Jennifer, you did say that you do think that the White House will send a legal team to these hearings. I think we can all agree it's unlikely that the president himself would show up and never testify. But, Jennifer, if he did, if the president did testify and said, I made a mistake, would that make it harder from a legal perspective for those Democrats to prove that he was trying to coerce, extort, bribe the Ukrainians?

RODGERS: Well, it wouldn't make it more difficult from a legal standpoint because the crime is committed long before the president now would acknowledge a mistake, but, sure. I mean, this is really all about what the Senate is going to do. And what the Senate does is all about what the public wants them to do. And so to the extent that he could move the needle with the public in whatever way he tries to do so, I think, will impact what happens in the Senate.

And I agree with Gene, it's a massive long shot to think that he'll be convicted there. But it's about what the public thinks. So, sure, if he could find a way to get the public more on his side, that would benefit him. But we know the president and I think it's highly unlikely that he will do what you suggest.

MARQUARDT: Well, regardless, it will be some very dramatic days are ahead. Gene Rossi, Jennifer Rodgers, thanks so much for joining us this evening.

[18:15:02]

ROSSI: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: All right. Well, there's new video that shows how brave bystanders inLondon helped to stop a terror attack onLondon Bridge, armed with just a fire extinguisher and a whale tusk.

Plus, as recent polls in Iowa showed him losing support in the key state, Joe Biden is kicking off his no malarkey bus tour of Iowa. So will he be able toll recapture his momentum? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: There's a dramatic new video that shows the heroics bystanders who took down the knife-wielding attacker on London Bridge after he had already stabbed two people to death. You can see there, there's a man carrying the tusk of a narwhal. It's a kind of whale. You can see him basically hitting the attacker there.

Witnesses are saying that he pulled it off the wall, the historic fish market and then went after the attacker with it. There's another bystander there who's attacking the attacker with a fire extinguisher.

[18:20:00]

Now, once the assailant was tackled to the ground, the police then showed up then shot him to death. Police are identifying the attacker as Usman Khan. He was released from prison early, that was last year, after a 2012 terror conviction for plotting to bomb the London Stock Exchange.

CNN's Mark Bolton is in London tonight.

Mark, English officials are now facing tough questions about why Khan was even let out of jail early last year.

MARK BOLTON, CNN JOURNALIST: Yes, absolutely. There's been universality about the praise for emergency services in the general public and the brave actions you've just seen. Now, there is universality about the questions being asked about the criminal justice system and its failure potentially in this circumstance to let a man well known and convicted of previous terror offenses openly to walk the streets of London and commit the horrendous acts that the U.K. capital saw on Friday afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOLTON: Released from prison in December 2018, having served just under seven years of a 16-year sentence for terrorism, the British born 28-year-old Usman Khan was shot dead on by London police on Friday after they say he stabbed two people to death near London Bridge.

In 2012, Khan was convicted for his part in a terror plot. Aged just 19 and one of a gang of nine, Khan pleaded guilty for his role in a plan bombing the London Stock Exchange.

At sentencing, the presiding judge warned Khan was a serious jihadist who would pose a significant risk to the public, even after his jail term was complete.

Yet, on appeal in 2013, the terms of Khan's sentence changed allowing for his automatic release without a hearing in December of 2018, on license, a form of parole in the U.K.

One condition of his release from custody, Khan had to wear an ankle monitor so his movements could be tracked. He was wearing it during Friday's attack.

Police later searched Khan's home in Staffordshire, 150 miles from London in the English woodlands, amid growing questions about his early release from custody following the 2012 terror conviction. (INAUDIBLE) sources are telling CNN Khan had historical links to a now banned radical Islamic group founded by Anjem Choudary.

REPORTER: What's intelligence failure leading to yesterday's attack?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not the time to be talking about that. I am focusing entirely on going forward.

BOLTON: Friday's lunchtime panic prompted Prime Minister Boris Johnson to claim the system is doing its job.

BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This system simply isn't working. It does not make sense for us as a society to be putting terrorist, people committed terrorist offenses or serious, violent offenses out on early release.

BOLTON: Praise of the emergency services and individual acts of heroism have been universal. But now, the British public will demand to know how could a convicted terrorist wearing an ankle monitor carry out such a horrific attack on the streets of London?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOLTON: The Metropolitan Police and the National Health Service have confirmed that one man and one woman were killed in the incident. Three people remain in hospital, two women and a man being treated.

Police are working in London in tandem with the Metropolitan Police, the West Midland Police Counterterrorism Squad and Staffordshire police, the area where Khan emanated from, Staffordshire, 150 miles north of London. Two properties have been searched there today in Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford, the capital itself, residences of Khan where he's reacquainted. And the police say as yet there is no evidence to suggest this is part of a conspiracy. They believe Khan was a lone operator in this horrific act.

MARQUARDT: All right. Mark Bolton in our London bureau, thanks very much.

Now, Democratic frontrunner Mayor Pete Buttigieg is getting some flak from the left after he criticizes the movement for free tuition colleges. Hear how the progressive wing of his party is responding. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

MARQUARDT: Eight days, 18 counties. Democratic presidential hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden has kicked off his Iowa bus tour with this goal in mind, to connect with voters and recapture the momentum and boost support.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Is this bus tour going to turn things around for your campaign here in Iowa?

JOE BIDEN (D), FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think our campaign is going fine, and I think it's going to help. We're going through the rural states. We've got to earn their votes. We've got to show up. That's what I'm doing.

REPORTER: Vice President, can you win the nomination without winning in Iowa?

BIDEN: Yes, but I'm going to win in Iowa.

REPORTER: What do you tell the voters about why you want to be president?

BIDEN: You got an hour?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Joe Biden talking to our Arlette Saenz there. The Biden campaign is calling the bus tour the No Malarkey Tour and says, it's the sprint to the finish before the first caucuses in the Hawkeye State. That's beginning of February.

And this comes as the latest CNN Des Moines Register Poll shows that Biden has just 15 percent among Democrats in Iowa. That's compared to 25 percent for a surging Mayor Buttigieg.

Joining us now to break all this down is the co-Founder and Managing Editor for the Beat D.C., Tiffany Cross, and Democratic strategist Nathan Rubin. Thank you both for joining me. Nathan is also the co- author of Boomers and Millennials Moving America Forward.

Nathan, I want to start with you. We just showed those poll numbers right there, Biden trailing Buttigieg by about 10 percent in Iowa. Is this going to be an effective way to recapture his momentum in Iowa?

NATHAN RUBIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, what's interesting about the different polls that we see here is that Joe Biden, Vice President Biden, is still a frontrunner nationally. But when you dig into the state-level polls, yes, Mayor Pete is definitely surging.

[18:30:00]

And we're starting to see a little bit of a flip from the progressive wing of the party, a shift towards the more pragmatic, if you will, over the last couple of weeks. And Mayor Pete definitely has momentum right now. He's picking up steam in New Hampshire as well.

The question is Joe Biden has a firewall in South Carolina, is any candidate going to be able to break through that.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: So let's just take a quick look at the name of the tour, the No Malarkey tour. Is it folksy and, obviously, that's why so many people like Joe Biden or does it remind the very important, all important younger voter base that he's quite old?

RUBIN: Well, it's interesting. I think there's definitely a generational divide in the Democratic base right now. Malarkey is not a word that I use on a regular basis and when you dig into the numbers here, younger voters are definitely more drawn to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the more progressive wing of the party.

MARQUARDT: Right.

RUBIN: So Joe Biden's age, I don't know if that is really the reason that they're not drawn to him, I think it might be his more incremental and pragmatic approach compared to their progressive vision for the future.

MARQUARDT: And the campaign is trying to own it not assuming that people know what malarkey is. It puts the definition of malarkey on the side of the bus. Senator Kamala Harris is someone who's quite far down in the polls right now. She is facing reports of turmoil within her campaign.

The New York Times actually got a letter, a resignation letter which was scathing from her state operations director who wrote, "This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its 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'. That is unacceptable."

Tiffany, what was your reaction when you saw that letter?

TIFFANY CROSS, CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BEAT DC: Well, first I wish every time we talked about this letter that we would immediately follow it up that it's a former Harris campaign staffer who is now presently working for her opponent, Bloomberg. So I think that's a really important note that we have to let our viewers know.

Listen, I think the Harris campaign has certainly made some missteps. But she's, I think, own them and she's had a couple of resets and restarts. And I think we have to stop putting, if I can just go back to Joe Biden for a second, we have to stop putting so much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire.

These are two states that are 93 percent and 94 percent white respectively. When we get to the other super Tuesday states, I'm really curious how these candidates will do in South Carolina, in California, in Texas, in Nevada where these voters really do reflect the country more. And I'm not sure how No Malarkey bus tour is going to play with voters in Atlanta or Detroit or even California.

So I think we got to stop looking at the polls and start looking at the issues. Even some of these labels we have, the moderate sort of the progressives, I think when you get out into the country that doesn't consume the minutiae of politics the way we do, they don't really follow those kind of labels. But if you talk to them specifically about issues and what matters to them and how their lives going be impacted by this election, well then some of these policies certainly do resonate them sans the label.

MARQUARDT: No, it's a really important point. I think you would both agree though that Iowa and New Hampshire to some extent set the table, set the agenda going forward. So Nathan, answer that question. How important is success in those early two states? Let's assume that Joe Biden didn't win them, but he's far ahead or at least doing well in Nevada and South Carolina, the states to follow. So how important for him and for others are Iowa and New Hampshire?

RUBIN: Look, I think that Iowa and New Hampshire are immensely important for momentum, for fundraising, for media narrative. But in terms of actual voter support, to Tiffany's point, Iowa and New Hampshire are not necessarily representative of the country as a whole. But they do help frame the narrative and shape that story moving into Super Tuesday.

MARQUARDT: Yes.

RUBIN: I mean, we have a lot of races still up there in Nevada, California, South Carolina. Those are going to be more diverse states that are more representative of the American people. But to your point, being first, having that first mover advantage is obviously super important.

MARQUARDT: Well, Pete Buttigieg who is leading that CNN/Des Moines Register poll in Iowa is getting a bit of heat for an ad that is attacking the idea of tuition free college. That's an idea that's been put forward by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe we should move to make college affordable for everybody. There are some voices saying, "Well, that doesn't count unless you go even further." Unless it's free even for the kids of millionaires, but I only want to make promises that we can keep.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Tiffany, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called that a GOP talking point. Do you think that the ads going to hurt him?

CROSS: I don't know if it will hurt him. I think Pete has enough challenges on his hands trying to resonate with voters of color. And I think specifically to this policy, it's interesting because it's not necessarily free college. I mean, it's public service, the public pays the public benefits.

And so I think when you kind of dig a little deeper in that policy and look at the reasons why some people don't support that, it does take us back to some historical moments where people started not supporting this when people of color specifically black people started gaining access to some of the public service.

[18:35:11]

So I think it's a slippery slope that Pete is walking and I think, again, when we talk about Pete resonating, he has a huge delta among his supporters. And so I'm not sure this is a road that Pete wants to go down.

MARQUARDT: To some extent, Democrats are being faced with a choice of do they just want to beat Donald Trump or is it time for a political revolution in the party. There has certainly been a leftward shift within the Democratic Party and I want to highlight to you guys a recent Washington Post article that was entitled Barack Obama, Conservative.

This is from David Swerdlick and he writes that Obama was skeptical of sweeping change, bullish on market, sanguine about the use of military force, high on individual responsibility and faithful to a set of old school personal values. Nathan, he was certainly more conservative than Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but he is the most beloved person in the Democratic Party. Is it fair to say that he could be considered to be conservative?

RUBIN: I think in a philosophical sense, when you think about someone who might be risk averse or not willing to take chances on an untested policy, he could be considered conservative. But in terms of the political spectrum, I don't necessarily think so. Again, this is a gentleman who brought us the Affordable Care Act, you made sure that we continue to make progress on health care in the United States.

So I think in terms of this leftward shift in the Democratic Party, I don't think it's fair to call President Obama a conservative. But in the philosophical sense, I can see where this author was trying to go.

MARQUARDT: All right. Well, we're going to have to leave it right there.

CROSS: OK.

MARQUARDT: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Tiffany.

CROSS: I just want to say quickly, David Swerdlick is a friend and neighbor and colleague, but I take a little bit of issue with the article. Look, we're in a culture shift right now and 10 years ago when Obama ran it was a very different America, post Trump there does, to your point, have to be a political revolution.

And so today, yes, Obama could be considered somewhat more conservative, but that doesn't take away from the progressive candidate he was when he ran back in 2008.

MARQUARDT: All right. Well, 65 days to the Iowa caucuses. Tiffany Cross, Nathan Rubin, thank you very much.

Now, Britain's Prince Andrew, he's been dealing with the fallout of his really disastrous TV interview with the BBC and now his accuser is responding. You'll hear what she has to say about his denial, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:41:58]

MARQUARDT: The very public disgrace of Britain's Prince Andrew over his link to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is about to grab headlines all over again. On Monday, the woman who claims that Epstein set her up with Prince Andrew to have sex when she was a minor is giving her first English interview in the United Kingdom to the BBC.

Andrew was recently asked about Virginia Roberts in his now notorious interview with the BBC which did not go well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMILY MAITLIS, BBC NEWSNIGHT HOST: One of Epstein's accusers, Virginia Roberts, has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001, she says she dined with you, danced with you at Trump Nightclub in London.

She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

PRINCE ANDREW, DUKE OF YORK: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

MAITLIS: You don't remember meeting her?

ANDREW: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Now, in this new interview, Virginia Roberts will respond to Prince Andrew's claim that he did not know her when her BBC interview airs on Monday. We got a preview of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIRGINIA ROBERTS GIUFFRE, PRINCE ANDREW'S ACCUSER: Who knows what happened. I know what happened and there's only one of us telling the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: I want to discuss all this with CNN Royal Commentator Victoria Arbiter. Victoria, thanks so much for joining me.

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: So you were just noting to me during the break that this interview with Virginia Roberts actually took place three weeks before Prince Andrew's with the BBC, which just held up as an example of an absolute PR nightmare. Prince Andrew has tried to be quiet in the last few weeks but, of course, this new Virginia Roberts interview is going to dredge everything up. How bad is this for the royal family?

ARBITER: Oh, gosh, I mean, it's just each week you think how much worse can it get and then boom, it implodes yet again. Now Prince Andrew, I think, approach that original interview, hoping to set some damage control. Hoping to distance himself from his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Unfortunately, in that interview, he just showed pure arrogance entitlement. He didn't mention the victims. He didn't show any remorse over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Hence the dramatic fallout that we have seen.

But on Monday, we are going to hear from Virginia Roberts directly and what I will say about Virginia Roberts is she has maintained her story for years. It is the same story every time she has repeatedly said that he knows what happens, he needs to come forward, he needs to tell the truth. So if it does later transpire that he was in fact lying in his

interview with Emily Maitlis, things are going to get a whole lot worse.

MARQUARDT: The primary jobs for these royals is to go out and go into public settings and do openings and ribbon cuttings and that kind of thing. They're also patrons of various charities. They maintain big fancy titles in the military. Prince Andrew has now stepped back.

But in his statement, he made it sound like it was temporary. Is there a chance that it becomes more permanent?

ARBITER: I'd be very surprised. I thought it was rather optimistic actually in Andrew's statement that he said he's stepping back for the foreseeable future.

[18:45:06]

I don't see him ever being able to reenter royal life for a number of reasons. First of all, his patronages are dropping like flies. Normally, charities are clamoring for a royal patron, but clearly the wrong royal patron is worse than no royal patron.

There are military branches now that are starting to say they want him stripped of his honorary titles. It's all just completely combusted and I think for Prince Andrew to try and make any kind of return to public life would take a major, major turn in public opinion. It's just not going to happen. People didn't like Prince Andrew very much before, they really don't like him now.

MARQUARDT: How threatening is this for the royal family?

ARBITER: When you've got one of your key players that falls from grace in such a spectacular fashion without any sense of remorse, it's bad. I mean at the end of the day, the monarchy, the institution monarchy is a business. But the key players, the Queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, William, Harry, Meghan, Kate, these are all popular members of the royal family.

They'll continue to do the job at hand. They'll continue to show up and uphold the highest standards of royal life and so they will survive. They've been around for over a thousand years. They've survived things on this scale before. It's just that this is quite a major blip and it's been a very difficult few weeks.

MARQUARDT: Prince Andrew who is the second son, third child, is generally acknowledged to be the Queen's favorite son. Do we have any sense of how their relationship is being affected by all of this?

ARBITER: Well, I think people have to remember that yes the Queen is head of state and her first job is to protect the institution of monarchy, but she is approaching this as a mother as well. It would have been very difficult for her to take Andrew into a room and say, "You need to step down. You are effectively banished from royal life." She was photographed horse riding with him a couple of days later.

She was criticized for that, but we don't know what she was saying. Perhaps she was advising him on how to keep quiet and how to step back. She may have been chastising him too, but I think she's going to need him to step back and keep a low profile and keep quiet so that the monarchy can get back into the good graces certainly around the world.

MARQUARDT: And there are reports that she canceled his birthday party in February.

ARBITER: Yes. I know this sounds like the punishment to a five-year- old, doesn't it?

MARQUARDT: Right.

ARBITER: But she has canceled his birthday party, but that was largely because it was a 60th birthday celebration that was going to include Prince Andrew's charities. These charities aren't really affiliated anymore, so no birthday party.

MARQUARDT: Victoria Arbiter, thank you so much.

ARBITER: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: All right. And Arizona Cardinals football player who hasn't played a single game this season due to an injury is now suspended indefinitely because of what the NFL caught him doing in his free time, which was betting on NFL games. That's coming up. You're live in NCC NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:52:02]

(SPORT)

MARQUARDT: Now, coming up, Bernie Sanders, senator by day, dancing machine by night. Plus, be sure to join Anderson Cooper and Kelly Ripa when they name the 2019 CNN Hero of the Year, CNN HEROES AN ALL- STAR TRIBUTE that airs December 8th right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:20]

MARQUARDT: Burn baby burn. A recent heart attack has not stopped Bernie Sanders from busting some moves on the dance floor. CNN's Jeanne Moos has that story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT(voice-over): You know how Bernie Sanders could get a little grouchy?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: OK. If we could

keep that down a little bit ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOOS(voice-over): Well, now you can't keep him down. This is the story of Bernie's night as a - not quite two months after his heart attack.

The sound of the temptations lured him onto the dance floor. And Bernie invited woman after woman to take a spin. Even if this one shyly resisted his attempt to twirl and even when he tried to stop, one after another they kept cutting in. Flashes popping as they scored dancing selfies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOOS: Would Bernie have been tempted to get down to the temptations before he had his heart attack?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOOS(voice-over): Those who cover him say he's a more lighthearted, humorous man after the health scare. Sure he's not the only one Berning up the dance floor. Mayor Pete Buttigieg's supporters have gone viral with a panic at the disco dance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN JOST, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE HOST: It's all part of Mayor Pete's strategy to get a negative percentage of the black vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOOS(voice-over): Nothing strategic about Bernie's dancing. He was pounced on by 23 women and one guy that's the Four Tops put it - neither could Bernie.

[19:00:00]