Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Democrats to Unveil Articles of Impeachment Tuesday; Zelensky and Putin Agree to Ukraine Ceasefire; Report: Start of Russia Probe Justified and Unbiased; Police Say They Seized Two Devices Meant To Kill; COP25's U.S. Attendees Commit To Climate Goals. Aired 2-3a ET
Aired December 10, 2019 - 02:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[02:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. This is CNN NEWSROOM and I'm Rosemary Church. Let's get started.
Articles of impeachment: in just a matter of hours, Democrats could unveil some of their charges against U.S. President Donald Trump.
Peace talks: after five years of conflict, Russia and Ukraine are talking about a cease-fire.
And no signs of life; the families of people missing after a volcanic eruption may be running out of hope.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
CHURCH: And we start with breaking news in the U.S. Impeachment inquiry. In just a few hours from now, Democrats plan to announce the articles of impeachment against president Donald Trump. Sources tell CNN at least two are on the table, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
On Monday, at the House Judiciary Committee's hearing, Republicans struggled to counter facts from witness testimony in the Ukraine scandal. The committee chairman said they were simply trying to deflect the heat away from the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Republicans hardly attempted to defend the president's conduct. All they talked about was the, in their view, improper process, that Biden and Burisma and Ukraine, but nothing about defending the president's conduct. And that's because the evidence is overwhelming and the conduct indefensible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHURCH: At times, Monday's hearing turned into a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans, as CNN's Alex Marquardt reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fireworks from the very start in the Judiciary Committee's latest hearing on impeaching the president. Republican members repeatedly interrupting the proceedings.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The gentleman will suspend.
(CROSSTALK)
MARQUARDT: Hours of contentious back and forth as Democrats in the committee laid the groundwork for articles of impeachment, arguing that the president's abuse of power was a betrayal of a nation.
BARRY BERKE, COUNSEL FOR HOUSE DEMOCRATS: In this scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear, supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted contemporaneous records, that it's hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an impeachable offense or offences.
MARQUARDT: The main witnesses with a lawyers from the House Intelligence Committee. There to answer questions about their findings in the eight-week investigation into the president pressuring Ukraine.
STEVE CASTOR, COUNSEL FOR HOUSE REPUBLICANS: This unfair process reflects the degree to which Democrats are obsessed with impeaching the president. The Democrats went searching for a set of facts on which to impeach the president. The emoluments clause, the president's business and financial records, the Mueller report, allegations of obstruction, before landing on the Ukraine phone call.
MARQUARDT: The Democratic side, represented by former prosecutor Daniel Goldman arguing they have shown that the president's demand that Ukraine carry out investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election was a quid pro quo and a threat to national security.
DANIEL GOLDMAN, DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL FOR HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE: President Trump's persistent continuing effort to coerced a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security.
MARQUARDT: The Republican, side represented by GOP lawyer Steve Castor, argued that the infamous July 25th call in which the president asked Ukrainian Present Zelensky for favor and those investigations, was about corruption and not the 2020 election.
CASTOR: To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney.
MARQUARDT: Castro continued to push the Republican talking point that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election, a conspiracy theory shut down by the intelligence community which has repeatedly singled out Russia.
CASTOR: I'm saying that both countries can work to influence an election.
[02:05:00]
CASTOR: A systemic coordinated Russian interference effort does not mean that some Ukrainian officials, saw Ukrainian officials, did not work to oppose President Trump's candidacy.
MARQUARDT: Chairman Jerry Nadler often struggled to maintain order, but argued there is no choice but to impeach Trump.
CASTOR: If he puts himself before the country in a matter that threatens our democracy then our oath, our promise to the American people requires us to come to the defense of the nation.
MARQUARDT: Republicans insisting that Democrats are rushing the process, trying to ram through impeachment ahead of the next presidential election.
REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): And at the end of the day, all this is about is about a clock and a calendar because they can't get over the fact Donald Trump is President of the United States and they don't have a candidate that they think can beat him. It's all political. And as we have talked about before, this is a show.
MARQUARDT: Alex Marquardt, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHURCH: CNN legal analyst Ross Garber joining me now. He is also a professor teaching impeachment law at Tulane Law School.
Thank you so much for being with us.
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's good to be with you.
CHURCH: Well, after a rowdy partisan hearing, who won the day with the most influential legal arguments, do you think, the Democrats or the Republicans?
GARBER: So first, as you know, impeachment isn't just legal. In fact, it's not primarily legal. It's mostly political. There are legal elements. And as you mentioned, today was quite rowdy. It was -- you know, it featured staffers from the House Republicans and Democrats sparring with each other and then answering questions from congress men.
I am not sure anyone really won the day today. But that assessment is probably not good news for the Democrats who actually have the burden of convincing the public and then potentially trying to win over some Republicans and keep all their members in check. So I am not sure today actually moved the ball at all, except that it actually moved us onto the next phase, which is the drafting of articles of the impeachment.
CHURCH: Yes. And according to a number of our sources, House Democrats will now bring forward at least two articles of impeachment against President Trump in the coming hours, one on abuse of power and the other on obstruction of Congress. There maybe a third article on obstruction of justice. But that's still being debated apparently. Is that your reading of what's likely to happen Tuesday?
GARBER: Yes. It makes sense. I there are going to be two articles. And however they're described, one is going to relate to the allegation that President Trump used his office to benefit himself personally and politically in exchange for demands that the president of Ukraine conduct these investigations.
So you know, an allegation that the president got something personally in exchange for Ukraine complying with his demands.
And that it will probably be described as some sort of abuse of office. And then the second article will be some sort of obstruction of Congress based on an allegation that the president and the White House ignored the House's demands for information and did so without any reasonable assertion of privilege or immunity.
CHURCH: Right. And whatever articles of impeachment are eventually drawn up, the Judiciary Committee will then begin debate on those articles of impeachment Thursday. How do you think that will all turn out and what will be the process? Just walk us through that.
GARBER: Yes. So the draft articles will be introduced. Members of the Judiciary Committee will debate back and forth. I expect that the debate is going to fall down along partisan lines. The Republicans will defend the president. The Democrats will urge adoption of the articles of impeachment. There maybe some amendments of the articles, although I doubt it.
And then there's going to be a vote. And so far, based on what we're seeing, that is also likely to be a party line vote, Democrats supporting the articles, Republicans voting no.
CHURCH: And then what?
GARBER: And then it goes to the full House. And there -- again, we expect it to be partisan. What I think we're watching for there is number one, will all the Republicans in the House stick with the president. So far, what we're hearing is that's likely to happen. But then, how many Democrats will vote no to one or more articles of impeachment.
So far, one Democrat has come out and said that he is not supporting the articles of impeachment. We'll see how many others, if any, follow him. And once that happens, it's onto the Senate for a trial.
[02:10:00]
CHURCH: Right. And that's what really annoys a lot of people, particularly Republicans, because that's where the Senate -- I mean the Republicans have it, don't they?
GARBER: Well, the Republicans do have it. Assuming nothing else happens and that's a big assumption. Assuming nothing else comes up, nothing else dramatic happens. The Republicans actually do have the majority in the Senate. It's a relatively narrow majority but they still have the majority, which means they set the rules. They set the timing.
And they determine the result, because in order for conviction in the Senate, you need a two-thirds majority. Republicans have the majority right now, so getting to two-thirds is very, very difficult.
CHURCH: Right. And of course, the Democrats say they have no choice but to impeach President Trump given the overwhelming evidence of abuse of power and the betrayal of a nation. Republicans call it all baloney and say it's all about a clock and a calendar. How will the people of America likely view this whole back and forth in the end?
GARBER: Yes. One thing to keep in mind is this is incredibly rare in the United States. Only two presidents in the history of the country have been impeached. It seems that Donald Trump is poised to become the third. And I think what we're going to see is if this plays out as you and I have just described it, where the House impeaches, the Senates votes to acquit.
The president will portray this as a completely partisan effort that didn't have the support of the majority of people. And that -- a Senate victory he'll say is a complete win for him. Democrats will still say that they had to do this, that there was misconduct. And we won't know really until, I think, Election Day ultimately what the American people have to say about it.
CHURCH: CNN legal analyst, Ross Garber, many thanks.
GARBER: Good to see you again.
CHURCH: Well, despite his featured role in the U.S. impeachment hearings, Ukraine's president had more pressing concerns in Paris. Volodymyr Zelensky held his first face-to-face meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Here is some of what the Ukrainian president said afterwards.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (through translator): Ukraine insisted the solution is not possible without achieving the most important goal which is the security in the east and part of Ukraine.
And when the security is achieved, we could start a political solution. Today, Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia Federation discussed some very important matters. First of all, it's urgent measures to secure peace in Ukraine and complete ceasefire in the Eastern part of Ukraine, which should start before the end of 2019.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHURCH: And Nick Paton Walsh joins us now from Paris, with more on this. So Nick, one of the details and conditions of this cease-fire that was
agreed upon?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was extraordinary yesterday to listen to the lengthy announcements. Really nothing new that had been suggested but failed before. The real key point is that we have new characters at the table in a renewed process.
Now Volodymyr Zelensky, a totally different man, cut from different cloth entirely from Vladimir Putin, his Russian counterpart. You can tell that, frankly, when they arrived. Zelensky turned up in a small Renault and walked up towards Elysee Palace.
Vladimir Putin arrived in an enormous black armored limousine. Now clearly the two men have a substantial task ahead of them, to try to bridge the gap in their positions.
And what we saw unveiled yesterday by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was a bid to reunite after three years of a freeze, this peace process but Volodymyr Zelensky reminded everybody, quite factually accurately, that the cease-fire coming into effect in the next few weeks by the end of this year has been tried a number of times.
He, in fact, said since fighting began; that's entirely true. There has always been a demand for a cease-fire. Some cynics might say that Russia's opportunity to use that diplomatic process to try to further its aims on the ground.
They went further, though, in these announcements, to suggest that possibly a further exchange of identified prisoners that both sides have and then maybe the head of March of next year we might see the sides pull back from three designated areas along the front line to reduce violence there.
And then ultimately, their main goal here was to establish local elections, in the separatist-held areas of Ukraine. Remember, this all started because not only was the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine taken by Russian forces, Russian-backed separatists and Russian military forces proper took parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014 and 2015 as well.
[02:15:00]
WALSH: They want now to hold elections in those areas, to establish their possible future status in Ukraine.
But there is an enormous sticking point here and that was evidently on display during the discussions. At times, you could see Volodymyr Zelensky twitching almost uncomfortably as Vladimir Putin spoke.
Unclear if that was the content or the late hour at which the talks happen, they did drag on well into the night.
But the key outstanding issue is, who controls Ukraine's border if these elections do occur?
Now Volodymyr Zelensky was quite clear that Ukraine was to control its entire border with Russia. It does not at the moment. The separatist areas are controlled by separatists, the border, Russia and Putin was clear, you have to have the elections first and a day after, that Ukraine can take control of its borders.
A clear gap between the men there. That has always been an issue, certainly, for the separatists in Russia, not wanting to give up control of that because it gives them access back and forth to those areas.
But an issue here where it is about these two, men whether Vladimir Putin liked what he heard during his discussions, felt he could get something more out of Volodymyr Zelensky.
Few analysts think this current situation is not entirely in Russia's advantage. They don't need these talks and Ukraine is in a tight spot. Europe perhaps wants to see Russia possibly come out of the cold a little bit. It is clear the Trump administration, you heard everything there about the impeachment.
It has certainly soured their view of the Ukraine conflict and the new Ukrainian president. He's in a very tight spot. A lot of demands for a successful conclusion to these peace talks here. But very little likely that Vladimir Putin will yield in the months ahead.
So now we are at a three- to four-month window laid out by this new strategy in which things could magically, possibly right after years of problems or slide back into that blame game again -- Rosemary?
CHURCH: All, right Nick Paton Walsh bringing us that live report from Paris. Many thanks.
Well, the grim task of recovery has begun after a deadly volcanic eruption in New Zealand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A number of flights were carried out throughout the day and no signs of life were seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHURCH: Just ahead, we will have a live report to find out where recovery operations stand right now.
Plus, a new U.S. Justice Department report finds no political conspiracy behind the FBI's Russia probe. President Trump's reaction.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[02:20:00]
CHURCH: Police in New Zealand say there are no signs of life on White Island after a sudden volcanic eruption. At least five people were killed. Dozens of tourists from a cruise ship were touring the island at the time of the explosion. Officials say at least eight people are missing and presumed dead.
For the latest, let's bring in journalist Donna-Marie Lever who is in Tauranga, New Zealand.
Donna-Marie, a few hours ago, police announced a criminal investigation into the loss of life in the wake of this volcanic eruption. They have since retracted that, saying it is too premature for that.
What more are you learning about what they said with this and, of course, the investigation?
DONNA-MARIE LEVER, JOURNALIST: Well, they are moving very quickly to just clarify what they say are the terms of reference for this investigation. This is an investigation into the circumstances of the deaths. They will work on behalf of the coroner and they will work alongside WorkSafe New Zealand.
They have also said it is simply too early to say if a criminal investigation is warranted or will need to take place. And as the sun sets here, you can see on the wharf behind me that a flower wall has started to emerge. People are finding this a place to come to pay their respects, their condolences.
Some of the messages I have read on those cards are truly heartbreaking. It is an outpouring of grief. One simply said the Maori translation for love. I think people are finding it very hard to deal with the news as it comes in and are wanting some place to meet.
CHURCH: And, what information do you currently have on the 31 survivors who remain in hospital?
LEVER: We know some of those survivors have some very serious injuries and some are in an extremely critical condition. We are told it could push the death toll into double digits as well.
They are at multiple hospitals across New Zealand. We only have four specialist burns units here in the country and we understand they are all full at the moment. So those updates keep rolling in. It is a very fluid situation, as some of their conditions continue to change.
Donna-Marie Lever, thank you so much for bringing us up to date on the situation. Appreciate it.
A developing story we are following, authorities in Chile are searching for an air force plane that went missing Monday night on its way to Antarctica. They say radio contact was lost a little over an hour after the plane took off. The Hercules C-130 has 38 passengers and crew on board. We will continue to watch that story. It will be a rare appearance of a national leader at the U.N.'s
highest court. Just ahead, Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi said she plans to fight genocide charges against her country, Myanmar.
Plus, the fight for Number 10 heats up in the final two days before Britain goes to the polls. Why the Conservatives are doing some damage control ahead of one of the most crucial elections in decades.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
CHURCH: In about an hour from now, Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi is set to arrive at The Hague. She is there to defend her country against charges of genocide for the military-led crackdown on Rohingya Muslims. For more on what's ahead, Kristie Lu Stout joins us now from Hong Kong.
So Kristie, the United Nations' top court opens this public hearing Tuesday on these accusations leveled against Myanmar for state- sponsored genocide.
[02:25:00]
CHURCH: What is expected to come out of this?
KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN ANCHOR: We know that Gambia, which is the country that has leveled these charges against Myanmar, they will ask the judges at the U.N.'s top court in The Hague to immediately bar Myanmar from destroying evidence and to bar Myanmar from taking further action against the Rohingya.
It is ultimately asking the court to rule that Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya. This is a case that will go on and on. The Rohingya is a stateless Muslim minority in the Rakhine city of Myanmar. They have faced waves of persecution.
Myanmar has ignored and downplayed U.N. reports alleging that, since 2017, its army has raped, tortured and murdered Rohingya Muslims, forcing more than 700,000 to flee to Bangladesh. And many are still there in Bangladesh, in Cox's Bazaar, these temporary refugee camps, not willing to return out of fear of what could happen to them.
The allegations of genocide were brought to the ICG (sic) by Gambia on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and that submission is harrowing. Let's bring it up for you.
They say this, quote, "The genocidal acts committed during these operations were intended to destroy the Rohingya as a group, in whole or in part, by the use of mass murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as the systematic destruction by fire of their villages, often with inhabitants locked inside burning houses," unquote. In these arguments, they are based on the findings of U.N.
investigations. Now in the next few days, all eyes will be on Aung San Suu Kyi and how she will defend Myanmar at the U.N.'s highest court. I spoke earlier with Nicholas Bequelin, a regional director of Amnesty International. Here is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICHOLAS BEQUELIN, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently denied, downplayed the crimes that were committed in Rakhine and she has, very unusually for a head of state or equivalent of a head of state, decided to represent its country at the proceedings, at the International Court of Justice.
She says that she is representing or defending Myanmar's national interests. The reality, unfortunately, is that she seems to be intent on defending her own interests ahead of the 2020 elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STOUT: The three day hearing begins today. We will first hear from Gambia before hearing from Myanmar and its de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, tomorrow -- Rosemary.
CHURCH: Kristie Lu Stout, bringing us that live report from Hong Kong. Many thanks.
A short break here. Still to, a new report is dividing the Justice Department and punching holes in President Trump's conspiracy theories, debunking his claims about the FBI's Russia probe.
Plus, with two days to go until Britain decides, CNN has been talking to voters across the country. But forget Brexit. Underlying everything is trust. More on that when we come back.
[02:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHURCH: Welcome back to CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Rosemary Church. Let's check the headlines for you this hour.
Democrats are planning to announce at least two articles of impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump in the day ahead. Sources tell CNN there will be abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Now, this comes after a very contentious House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing on Monday.
The presidents of Ukraine and Russia held their first face-to-face meeting in Paris. Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin agree to a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine by the end of this year. They also pledged to work toward local elections in the separatist region, but avoided setting a timetable.
Authorities in New Zealand say they don't expect to find any more survivors on White Island after a sudden volcano eruption. At least five people were killed while touring the island, eight others are missing and presumed dead.
Well, the U.S. Justice Department internal watchdog says the start of the FBI probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election was unbiased and legal. The department's inspector general lays out the findings in a new 435-page report.
It refutes President Trump's claims of a conspiracy and that the FBI was spying on his campaign. But it also found errors in how the FBI got surveillance warrants targeting former campaign adviser Carter Page.
Former FBI director James Comey was fired by Mr. Trump and became a favorite target of the President. Comey spoke earlier about the report with CNN's Anderson Cooper.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Do you think this is vindication?
JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: It is. I mean, the FBI has had to wait two years while the President and his followers lied about the institution. Finally, the truth gets told. I hope it's not too late, but on all the important things, it tells the truth. They don't want to talk about what we just talked about.
That the report is a complete vindication for the FBI against charges of treason, of spying, of planting informants in the camp of all the criminal conspiracy that was supposed to land all of us in jail, turns out to be nonsense. That's not a message, apparently, they want to be spending the couch time talking about.
There's a risk, we've become so numb to the lying that we just move on to the next outrage and we can't do that. For two years, the President of the United States accused our premier law enforcement agency of treason, of trying to defeat him, of trying to stop him and it turns out that was all nonsense. That was all lies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHURCH: Despite all that, the White House says the report actually supports its claims. CNN's Jim Acosta has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The White House is seizing on a report from the inspector general of the Justice Department. They found no political bias in terms of the origins of the Russia investigation.
The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, released a statement saying that this report underlines that Americans should be outraged and terrified by an abuse of power, she says, inside the FBI, during the operation of the Russia investigation.
However, it should be pointed out that the inspector general found no political bias at the heart of this investigation, even though the inspector general said there were some errors made by FBI agents in seeking a wiretap of a Trump campaign advisor during the 2016 election cycle.
Despite all of that, the President latched onto the report earlier in the day, to go after the FBI one more time. Here is what he had to say.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The I.G. report just came out and I was just briefed on it and it's a disgrace what's happened, with respect to the things that were done to our country. It should never again happen to another president.
It is incredible. Far worse than I would've ever thought possible. And it is an embarrassment to our country. It's dishonest. It's everything that a lot of people thought it would be, except far worse.
[02:35:16]
ACOSTA: Even though the White House and the President are pointing to this inspector general's report as proof of an abuse of power inside the FBI, both the attorney general and another prosecutor tapped to study the origins of the Russia investigation. John Durham say they don't agree with the inspector general's findings. Jim Acosta, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHURCH: CNN legal analyst and former FBI general counsel Jim Baker joins me now. Good to have you with us.
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks for having me.
CHURCH: So, despite two years of talking points by both President Trump and Republicans, it turns out that the Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, found there was no political conspiracy to undermine his 2016 campaign, and there were no FBI spies planted. What's your reaction to that, and how significant is this?
BAKER: I think it's very significant. I think there's mainly two big conclusions from the report. On the one hand, that's right. The FBI didn't engage in a coup, any politically-motivated conspiracy, sedition, treason, or anything like that. And the thought that the investigation was properly and lawfully authorized, so therefore, it wasn't a hoax, it was a real case.
We know that from the Mueller investigation on the indictments of the Russian individuals there. But also, look, the I.G. did take the FBI to task for mistakes that were made with respect to the information that was included in the Carter Page FISA application and the renewals of that application.
And those mistakes and what the FBI left out of the applications is unacceptable and people should be held accountable, and management changes need to be made with respect to the policies and procedures, and the FBI director is pursuing that. So, that -- you know -- so, it's a balanced report in that regard, but I'm very pleased to say that he concluded that there was no political bias or attempt to overthrow the President or anything of that nature.
CHURCH: Right. In that sense, he didn't make either party that happy, but certainly, the Democrats would be -- they would be happier with the outcome of this. But as you say, these mistakes made by the FBI, an effort will be made now to ensure that this doesn't happen in future, but how significant are the stakes like that when you look at it in the big picture?
BAKER: Well, in the big picture, yes. They're very significant. Because they undermine the public's trust in the FISA process and that's very serious. The FISA court and the role that it plays in our system is critically important for our ability to collect intelligence information, pursuant to the rule of law and I've worked in that area for a long, long time, over 20 years now.
And this issue of making sure that we are filing accurate -- I'm sorry -- applications with the FISA court has bedeviled us for a long time. It's just really hard to maintain the standards overtime and, you know, so we obviously need to do a better job as an institution.
We -- I speak in the present sense, but really, the FBI needs to make sure that it has in place the policies and procedures and the right people and the right culture to make sure that this doesn't happen again.
CHURCH: Right. And Attorney General Bill Barr and John Durham, the U.S. attorney, leading a separate review for the attorney general, made it very clear that they were not happy with the inspector general's conclusions. How does that change anything, though?
BAKER: Well, the statements by the attorney general and Mr. Durham, I found very hard to understand. I couldn't really figure out why they were issuing them other than just not being happy with the conclusions. Mr. Durham's statement is a bit more nuanced and opaque, quite frankly.
But, you know, the attorney general's statements I don't think are consistent with what the inspector general found. I think he is just wrong with respect to some of his conclusions. And I just don't think that's good for the country because it adds to public confusion about what was decided by the inspector general.
The inspector general spent years on this, many people involved reviewed, you know, many, many documents, interviewed many witnesses. And so -- and he's an independent observer in all of this. So, I think when he reaches a conclusion, it's one that we should accept and base our future decisions on, not the attorney general sort of commentary on it.
CHURCH: But despite what the inspector general's report concludes, President Trump is focusing on mistakes made by the FBI, and not the main conclusion that there was no political conspiracy to undermine his campaign. Is that spin or does not understand what this report is saying? What it means?
BAKER: Well, I don't know exactly. It sounds -- it seems to me to be more spin, because the inspector general concluded that there was no political bias, or political motivation rather, with respect to what the decisions -- with respect to the decisions that were made. And so, the President continuing to talk about some type of attempted overthrow of him or the government, is just not factually accurate.
[02:40:11]
And so, he should just cease with that. So, the only thing I can conclude is that he's not happy with the main headline out of the I.G. report that there was no hoax and no coup. And so, he's trying to spin it to his own political advantage, and that's just unacceptable.
CHURCH: CNN legal analyst and former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, many thanks to you for joining us and for sharing your analysis on all of this. We appreciate it.
BAKER: Thank you.
CHURCH: Britain's general election is just two days away and Brexit and the National Health Service are taking center stage as the candidates make their final pitch to voters. CNN's Simon Cullen joins me now from London. So, Simon, Boris Johnson has come under fire after refusing to look at a photo of a sick child forced to sleep on a hospital floor. Tell us more about that.
SIMON CULLEN, CNN EDITOR AND FIELD PRODUCER: Good morning, Rosemary. This began as a newspaper front page yesterday. It was a photo of that 4-year-old boy sleeping under some coats on a hospital floor in Leeds. He had suspected pneumonia. There were not enough hospital beds for him, so he was on the floor.
Now, Boris Johnson was in the region yesterday. He was asked about this case by a reporter who had the photo on his phone, but rather looking at the phone, Boris Johnson took it and put it in his pocket. Let's have a look at some of that exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: I have every sympathy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You refused to look at the photo. You've taken my phone and put it in your pocket, Prime Minister. His mother says the NHS is in crisis. What's your response?
JOHNSON: It's a terrible, terrible photo and I apologize, obviously, to the family and all of those who have terrible experiences in the NHS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CULLEN: So, Boris Johnson there, eventually did look at the photo after being called out on it by the reporter. Now, it was as you can imagine, a clip that went viral on social media, just on the reporters Twitter feed alone, it has been viewed more than 8 million times, prompting the Conservative Party to go into damage control.
They dispatched the health secretary Matt Hancock to the hospital late yesterday to acknowledge the situation. It's far from perfect. And on Twitter, he said that it's not good enough and I am sorry. I love the NHS, he said, and I always want it to be the best.
Now, the health secretary says there are plans to triple the size of the accident and emergency ward at Leeds Hospital, that will happen next year. But even as he was at the hospital yesterday, he faced his own problems.
There was a small group of noisy protesters outside to greet him, accusing the Conservatives of undermining the National Health Service and underfunding health services generally, in the U.K.
CHURCH: All right, Simon Cullen, we'll be interested to see what sort of impact this has on the election going forward, just a couple more days. We'll see what the outcome is. Many thanks.
Well, Hong Kong police say if they didn't act, people could have been killed or maimed. What we're learning about two alleged bombs stashed at a middle school. That's still to come. Plus, how business leaders are coming together to help prevent climate change.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:46:15]
CHURCH: Police in Hong Kong, say they have defused two bombs that could have killed and injured many people. They say the bombs were packed with shrapnel, stashed inside a middle school, and were likely meant to be triggered by a cell phone. It's not clear if this is connected to the city's ongoing, sometimes violent pro-democracy protests.
For more, CNN's Ivan Watson is live in Hong Kong and joins us now. So, Ivan, what the Hong Kong authorities saying about these two homemade bombs that were defused, thankfully?
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're saying that this could have been potentially very deadly. And that these were two bombs that were essentially completed in production and were awaiting potential placement.
They had a total between the two of them of about 10 kilograms of explosives, as well as other items for shrapnel, including nails that could've been activated by cellphones. And they were found on the grounds, on the campus of a Jesuit college in Hong Kong's Wang Chai District.
That school says that, that is part of its campus that is outside of the gates. That is essentially open to the public. The authorities have not linked these explosives to any political faction. As recently as Sunday, however, Hong Kong police have announced a number of raids and said they seized a pistol and arrested a number of suspects and a number of bullets. And they have announced other weapon seizures and explosive seizures in the past. Rosemary.
CHURCH: All right and how might this change the way Hong Kong police deal with pro-democracy protests going forward? Of course, they haven't made a link to these protests at this point. So, we need to say that.
WATSON: Yes. I mean, it just shows how much things have changed in this former British colony. Two years ago, I witnessed the bomb squad deployed to safely remove World War II-era munitions that have been dropped by planes that were uncovered in excavations.
Now, the authorities on the lookout for weapons. Because both sides in the ongoing political crisis now that has hit six months have resorted increasingly to violence. Protesters, the more radical ones throwing Molotov cocktails engaged in hand-to-hand combat with police.
And the police using water cannons firing some 10,000 rounds of tear gas and seemed more recently carrying submachine guns in clashes with, again, some of the more radical protesters.
On Sunday, it's important to note that there was a mass peaceful protest that was authorized by the authorities. Where their estimates of more than 800,000 demonstrators peacefully market -- marching through the streets, showing their defiance to the policies of the unelected government here.
And the Chief Executive Carrie Lam addressed that march in a brief statement to the press earlier today. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARRIE LAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF HONG KONG: We have seen a relatively calm and peaceful protest on Sunday. This reflects the freedoms that Hong Kong people are enjoying.
And so, I hope that this, this phenomenon will go also to abroad to show that Hong Kong is upholding for the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people. So, all of those accusations from various quarters that we are eroding people's freedoms is unsubstantiated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATSON: I think we can take that as thinly veiled criticism of the recent Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed by the U.S. government, signed by the Trump administration, which the Hong Kong government, and by extension, the Chinese central government have argued that, that is meddling by the U.S. government in Hong Kong and China's internal affairs. Rosemary.
[02:50:13]
CHURCH: All right. Ivan Watson, many thanks to you, bringing us that live report from Hong Kong.
Well, the COP25 climate conference is now in its second week in Madrid. A group of U.S. business and local leaders are there trying to spread the word that they still believe in climate goals and sustainability.
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is expected to make an appearance as well. And for more on this, we want to turn to CNN's Arwa Damon, joining us live from the COP25.
And Arwa, that has been interesting to see all of these politicians, representatives from the United States bending over backwards to make it clear to the world that they are on board with this effort on climate change.
ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And you do really get a sense, Rosemary, that they at the very least despite what the Trump administration has been doing, are taking this issue of the climate crisis very, very seriously.
Collectively put together, they say that they represent more than 60 percent of the U.S. population a significant chunk of its GDP. And that they through their own independent efforts, can bring down U.S. emissions about 37 percent.
However, if the federal government does come on board, they can bring U.S. emissions down to 49 percent. Meaning that in theory, with the federal government, the U.S. would be on track to meet that 1.5 degrees Celsius target.
But at this stage, you don't have the Trump administration on board. And that has really to a certain degree caused quite a bit of concern. When you speak to some of the other players, the other nations.
Because the U.S. has up until this point, at least, really been something of a global leader when it comes to leading the discussions -- leading the negotiations, especially around the issue of the climate crisis.
Right now, we're seeing potentially others stepping forward, the European Union for example. But still, despite all of the warnings, despite all of the science, Rosemary, you do continue to have a lack of urgency at the very least at the federal government level.
And not just when it comes to the United States. We've been inside -- and you hear these amazing inspirational statements from youth activists who really should never have been put in the position that they have been put in.
A young woman from Uganda, yesterday, saying that she felt as if being from the global south was akin to being given something of a death sentence. That she felt like it was similar to yet another apartheid era with environmental racism taking place.
You have all of these efforts across the world on the part of local businesses, local governments. And yet, at the negotiating level, those crucial decisions that need to be made, you don't really have that same sense of urgency. There's still a lot of back-and-forths, Rosemary, over the wording of some of these key articles that would really allow this entire process to move forward.
And one that we must repeat over and over and over again is critical not just for these negotiations, but because what comes out of these types of meetings, that affects all of us.
CHURCH: Yes, indeed. And young people are leading the charge on this issue more than any other. Arwa Damon, joining us live from Madrid. Many thanks.
Coming up next, is it a high concept or a bit of emperor's new clothes. This banana taped to a wall at the whole art world talking. So, is this performance artist a bad apple for eating it? We will hear from him directly. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:55:46]
CHURCH: It was the piece of fruit that made the art world go bananas after it appeared at the Art Basel festival in Miami. Just days ago, Italian artists Maurizio Cattelan, duct-taped this banana to a gallery wall and sold it for $120,000. Some have mocked it, of course. Others say it's serious art.
One critic writes, "What makes Mr. Cattelan a compelling artist is precisely Mr. Cattelan's willingness to implicate himself within the economic, social, and discursive systems that structure how we see and what we value. It makes sense that an artist would find those systems dispiriting, and the duct-taped banana, like the suspended horse, might testify to his and all of our confinement within commerce and history."
But now, this banana piece is gone because another artist decided to peel it off the gallery wall and eat it. And here is what performance artist David Datuna told my colleagues, Isa Soares and Cyril Vanier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID DATUNA, PERFORMANCE ARTIST: And I think if somebody did banana like the artwork, why I can't eat? It's going to be another art performance like one artist eat conception of another artist.
It is not really I ate banana, I ate the concept. Banana, this is just the tools.
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: OK, hold on. What is the concept to me, it's a -- it's a banana with a bit of duct tape.
DATUNA: Yes, it is. But concept of -- you have to ask the Maurizio what he think about -- why he put the banana. This is art or not? So, this is why I did exactly. And my performance, why I eat it, this is art or not, can artists eat art from another artist?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHURCH: Very deep. Datuna, says he's not sorry.
And thank you so much for your company. I'm Rosemary Church. I'll be back with more news in just a moment. Do stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[03:00:00]
